# Skeptico Saloon: An Objectivist Joint



## gnarlsagan

Thought we could use a new hang out. Keep close fellas. The night is dark and full of terrors.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Subscribed.


----------



## Greenleaf7

Subbed as well


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Does anyone have the link to the study where they EQed different headphones to sound like each other and asked listeners to grade their sound quality? The result being that when frequency responses were made similar sound quality became similar as well?


----------



## gnarlsagan

joe bloggs said:


> Does anyone have the link to the study where they EQed different headphones to sound like each other and asked listeners to grade their sound quality? The result being that when frequency responses were made similar sound quality became similar as well?




I'd be interested in seeing it. 

Also I came across an enlightening read on why the piano only goes up to ~4.1kHz. For some reason I thought for sure it would be higher. http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6229/why-is-the-highest-frequency-on-a-piano-4186-hertz

The piano is definitely one of the most interesting instruments regarding FR. I've also read that the notes aren't evenly spaced frequency wise. They were tuned by ear! Crazy.


----------



## jcx

Quote: 





udauda said:


> Back to the subject:
> How far can EQ really go towards truly equalizing headphones?
> Take a look at these papers:
> http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart1.pdf
> ...


 
   
  and there's also the example of the Smyth Realizer...


----------



## mikeaj

Quote:


gnarlsagan said:


> I'd be interested in seeing it.
> 
> Also I came across an enlightening read on why the piano only goes up to ~4.1kHz. For some reason I thought for sure it would be higher. http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6229/why-is-the-highest-frequency-on-a-piano-4186-hertz
> 
> The piano is definitely one of the most interesting instruments regarding FR. I've also read that the notes aren't evenly spaced frequency wise. They were tuned by ear! Crazy.


 

   
  Extended range pianos were attempted (in the modern day) but never really caught on. For one, the extra keys extending out both directions confuse people who are used to the standard 88. And there's pretty much no music written to take advantage of the extra ones, not like they would have too much sonic contribution. Have you tried playing the top key on the standard set? It doesn't carry that well anyway.
   
  Recall that keyboard instruments have evolved quite a bit since say the 1600s though not much (in terms of keys and so on) since the late 19th century. A lot of the earlier music is written for instruments that don't have modern pedals or even the modern range of keys.
   
  Piano tuning is a whole topic in of itself. Let's just say that there are tradeoffs involved if you want the tuning to work for being able to play in multiple key signatures.
   
   
  I'm pretty sure this isn't the study being referenced (edit: looks like jcx got it), but doesn't the latest paper out of Harmon's labs (Sean Olive and co.) cover different EQ targets using two different headphones? EQ is changed to match different responses like diffuse field, the proposed speakers-response-based one, and others. I don't know if there's a comparison between the different headphones once EQed to be similar.


----------



## xnor

Oh hai there, thanks for re-opening the saloon.


----------



## gnarlsagan

xnor said:


> Oh hai there, thanks for re-opening the saloon.




Woah! Welcome back!


----------



## Happy Camper

xnor said:


> Oh hai there, thanks for re-opening the saloon.


Welcome back xnor.


----------



## xnor

I was never gone!
   
   
  Regarding equalizing headphones, there might also be some useful info in Olive/Welti's latest paper. Not free though.


----------



## audionewbi

I am on board.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Quote: 





jcx said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Doesn't read like the paper did quite what he claimed though?  For one FIR filter != EQ.  For another, the original headphone scored higher than its simulation by another headphone (this goes both ways, the Stax simulating the crap phone scored lower than the crap phone itself too? Lol).  I didn't quite get whether this last bit was a significant difference though.


----------



## bigshot

cafe, saloon... the next one will have to be a tea room!


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> cafe, saloon... the next one will have to be a tea room!


 
  Well, there is also parlor, halfway house, convention, enclave, coffee shop and doubtless more.


----------



## jaddie

..and subscribed.


----------



## audionewbi

Here is something which has always troubled me ever since I have started reading about cables. When a pure copper cable and gold copper cabled are measured they both seem to measure identically however people claim the silver has better treble. Can it be that we need more sensitive measuring mechanism or the cable makers are trying to lie?


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





audionewbi said:


> . Can it be that we need more sensitive measuring mechanism or the cable makers are trying to lie?


 
  We can measure well below the threshold of audibility of any electrical parameter.  
   
  So....


----------



## ToddTheMetalGod

I've been getting into computers more than headphones lately (I take turns between my hobbies so I don't start to get bored). I need to learn more about sound science though and I'm really starting to like the objectivism approach to audio. I believe that a DAC and amp should be transparent and measure well, leaving the headphones to change frequency response (aside from maybe a little equalization to fix small imperfections). I think my problem with equalization is the potential for distortion, then again no matter what you do distortion will always exist.
   
  I, too hate that people can so easily be fooled in audio, this is a hobby where some people won't listen to science even with proof shown to them... it kind of frightens me. I mean if they understand the information that proves something (i.e. measurements showing that copper and silver cables have almost exactly the same frequency response), how can they believe it is different?
   
  I hope I don't start an argument with this...
   
  Edit: By the way, I'm not saying cables have no effect on sound quality. For example, magnetic shielding is important (particularly around sources of electromagnetic radiation, when running my computer under extreme load on Folding @ Home my un-shielded Xonar DGX picks up a lot of noise). I have a question about cables, does the purity of the copper or stranded/solid wire actually have an impact on the function a piece of audio equipment?


----------



## ToddTheMetalGod

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> We can measure well below the threshold of audibility of any electrical parameter.
> 
> So....


 
   
  Most people cannot understand many measurements of electrical parameters though, so it leads to a barrier in communication when discussing objectivism.


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





toddthemetalgod said:


> Most people cannot understand many measurements of electrical parameters though, so it leads to a barrier in communication when discussing objectivism.


 
  Yes, but some even who understand, still don't believe the measurements. 
   
  I think it is the old gut vs head problem.  You can know something is so in your head, and have that gut feeling which disagrees with it.  Pretty hard to ignore that gut feeling.


----------



## ToddTheMetalGod

Quote: 





esldude said:


> Yes, but some even who understand, still don't believe the measurements.
> 
> I think it is the old gut vs head problem.  You can know something is so in your head, and have that gut feeling which disagrees with it.  Pretty hard to ignore that gut feeling.


 

 That's true. It is hard to ignore it, but sometimes you just have to use the proven science to expand your understanding of things.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





toddthemetalgod said:


> I have a question about cables, does the purity of the copper or stranded/solid wire actually have an impact on the function a piece of audio equipment?


 
   
  From sound.westhost.com
  Quote: 





> Oxygen free copper (or OFC) supposedly means that there is no oxygen and therefore no copper oxide (which is a rectifier) in the cable, forming a myriad of micro-diodes that affect sound quality.  The use of OFC cable is therefore supposed to improve the sound.
> Try as I might (and many others before me), I have never been able to measure any distortion in any wire or cable.  Even a length of solder (an alloy of tin and lead) introduces no distortion, despite the resin flux in the centre (and I do realise that this has nothing to do with anything - I just thought I'd include it
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Quote: 





> I think my problem with equalization is the potential for distortion, then again no matter what you do distortion will always exist.


 
  If you don't go crazy the only problem I see is digital clipping. You can prevent that pretty easily though by using a digital preamp to pull down the EQ curve below 0 dBFS or not boosting stuff.


----------



## ToddTheMetalGod

Thanks for the help Xnor 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Yeah I figured cables really didn't make a difference, I once saw the results of a blind test in which one setup was used and the variable was the conductors from the amplifier to the speakers. In the test, one listen was done using an "audiophile grade" speaker cable and the other a coathanger. The results from the blind listeners concluded that the coathanger sounded better (obviously this was likely a guess, unless resistance or magnetic shielding came into play). I always figured wires didn't make much of a difference unless they were of barely functional quality, but it's always nice to have a well built cable. Yeah I'm still skeptical about equalization though (since I am terrible at it). As long as equalization is done downwards in volume, clipping shouldn't become a problem.


----------



## jaddie

toddthemetalgod said:


> Thanks for the help Xnor
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  There is a possibility that the additional inductance of spaced conductors like coat hangers could affect high frequencies, but it would depend on the complete electrical circuit including the complex load of the speaker.  Spacing two conductors in an AC circuit creates a huge single-turn coil. Not saying thats what happened in that case, but it is one potential difference.  The additional inductance of spacing wires at a few inches should not, on it's own, affect anything.  But when taken in combination with a load the whole thing becomes a filter, and the effects can easily creep down into the audio range. The effect is highly dependent on the specific speaker load, and you can't generally say it would be audible.
  Quote: 





toddthemetalgod said:


> I've been getting into computers more than headphones lately (I take turns between my hobbies so I don't start to get bored). I need to learn more about sound science though and I'm really starting to like the objectivism approach to audio. I believe that a DAC and amp should be transparent and measure well, leaving the headphones to change frequency response (aside from maybe a little equalization to fix small imperfections). I think my problem with equalization is the potential for distortion, then again no matter what you do distortion will always exist.


 
  There is a possibility for extreme EQ to cause overloads in some situations, but there are also ways to avoid this and still use some rather significant EQ.  
  Here are a few examples.  
   
  First, no EQ applied:
   

   
  Now, with a radical +15dB at 8KHz applied with a simple 10-band graphic EQ. Note that even though there is 15dB of EQ dialed in, the resulting peaks changed by less than 6dB.  This is because of the limited bandwidth of the equalizer, and that statistically there was very little energy in the file at the 8KHz band center.
   

   
  Finally, the original with +6dB of shelving EQ from 1KHz and down.  Literally, half the spectrum had 6dB of boost applied.  Now we see our expected 6dB of peak level change:
   

   
  So the answer is, you can apply some rather significant boost so long as the bandwidth is controlled, which is exactly what you would do for headphone EQ.  Also, there's a lot less energy in the high half of the spectrum most of the time, so you have more EQ headroom there.  However, this one precaution: If the EQ is applied in the digital realm, and the equalizer DSP software does not provide for an overall gain adjustment, you could have an issue if your original looked like this, which is our original without pre-adjusting for EQ gain:
   

  As you can see, peaks are already a fraction of a dB from FS, no room for any boost there.  Good digital EQ provides an overall gain adjustment to compensate for the gain of an equalizer.  Once that's done, you can pretty much EQ at will without clipping anything post EQ, including your amp.  An analog EQ before an amp would require enough total system headroom to accomplish EQ without clipping. 
   
  There's also nothing wrong with using EQ in 'cut' mode only to achieve the same resulting curve, it just takes a bit more understanding and thought, and realizing that the result cause a general volume drop with the benefit of better sound.  For example, in the third graphic I applied a 6dB shelf boost below 1kHz.  The same effect could be had by applying a 6dB shelf cut above 1KHz, and we would have ended up with much more peak headroom.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Even a length of solder (an alloy of tin and lead) introduces no distortion, despite the resin flux in the centre (and I do realise that this has nothing to do with anything - I just thought I'd include it 



.  How about fencing wire - no, no distortion there either.  The concept of degradation caused by micro-diodes in metallic contacts has been bandied about for years, without a shred of evidence to support the claim that it is audible.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> Even a length of solder (an alloy of tin and lead) introduces no distortion, despite the resin flux in the centre (and I do realise that this has nothing to do with anything - I just thought I'd include it
> 
> 
> 
> .  How about fencing wire - no, no distortion there either.  The concept of degradation caused by micro-diodes in metallic contacts has been bandied about for years, without a shred of evidence to support the claim that it is audible.


 
  Well, that's sort of like saying you can't taste salt in water.  It depends on how much you mix in.  If "distortion" includes all forms of signal alteration, then if you have enough of anything, there will be distortion.  Even good, large gage oxygen-free copper, if you have enough, takes it's toll, and becomes easily audible at several hundred feet. 
   
  Galvanized steel fence wire?  No problem measuring and hearing that, at at less length than copper by a long shot.  
   
  As far as degradation caused by micro-diodes in metallic contacts, if you haven't experienced an oxidized contact causing distortion, just consider yourself fortunate.  It happens shortly before the contact completely breaks down, and is not all that uncommon, certainly documented, but perhaps only in the context of a contact reliability study.  In short, just about any contact material except for 24k gold will oxidize given enough time and exposure to the wrong atmosphere and conditions.  Low contact force permits oxidation growth between contacts, which is only semi-conductive, and depending on the materials, non-linear.  We don't see the effect very often because good engineering has worked around it with high force contacts, or the right plating sealed off from the atmosphere.  High current and voltages also break down oxidation, so you won't find this happening in speaker circuits very much.  But yes, it exists, is documented and we do have to deal with it.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





toddthemetalgod said:


> I think my problem with equalization is the potential for distortion, then again no matter what you do distortion will always exist.


 
   
  The way to think about that is to weigh the huge and clearly audible benefit of equalization against the minute and pretty much inaudible distortion of a halfway decent equalizer.
   
  On my receiver, there is a direct bypass button. It bypasses all of the equalization and DSPs... and even the tone controls and just patches direct from input to amp to output with no processing. When I push that button, The soundstage shrinks, the tone becomes opaque, and the overall sound feels flat. Switch back in the processing and the whole thing opens up and becomes clearer. I'd never be satisfied with the sound of my system if I wasn't able to adjust it.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Well, that's sort of like saying you can't taste salt in water.  It depends on how much you mix in.  If "distortion" includes all forms of signal alteration, then if you have enough of anything, there will be distortion.  Even good, large gage oxygen-free copper, if you have enough, takes it's toll, and becomes easily audible at several hundred feet.
> 
> Galvanized steel fence wire?  No problem measuring and hearing that, at at less length than copper by a long shot.
> 
> As far as degradation caused by micro-diodes in metallic contacts, if you haven't experienced an oxidized contact causing distortion, just consider yourself fortunate.  It happens shortly before the contact completely breaks down, and is not all that uncommon, certainly documented, but perhaps only in the context of a contact reliability study.  In short, just about any contact material except for 24k gold will oxidize given enough time and exposure to the wrong atmosphere and conditions.  Low contact force permits oxidation growth between contacts, which is only semi-conductive, and depending on the materials, non-linear.  We don't see the effect very often because good engineering has worked around it with high force contacts, or the right plating sealed off from the atmosphere.  High current and voltages also break down oxidation, so you won't find this happening in speaker circuits very much.  But yes, it exists, is documented and we do have to deal with it.


 
  I was quoting xnor. I never once thought of using fencing wire nor a length of solder as cables!


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The way to think about that is to weigh the huge and clearly audible benefit of equalization against the minute and pretty much inaudible distortion of a halfway decent equalizer.
> 
> On my receiver, there is a direct bypass button. It bypasses all of the equalization and DSPs... and even the tone controls and just patches direct from input to amp to output with no processing. When I push that button, The soundstage shrinks, the tone becomes opaque, and the overall sound feels flat. Switch back in the processing and the whole thing opens up and becomes clearer. I'd never be satisfied with the sound of my system if I wasn't able to adjust it.


 
  Agreed, the benefits are worth it.  However, equalization in and of itself doesn't add distortion, other than a modification of frequency and phase response.  If its used to compensate for something else that has produced an undesirable anomaly, equalization that compensates for that can actually reduce distortion.  It's only an issue if the resulting gain forces program material above a clipping threshold.


----------



## bigshot

People seem to think any sort of volume pot or tone control introduces distortion. Crazy.


----------



## xnor

What gets me is when people are scared of equalization but use a hot source and amp with way too high gain so that they have to fiddle with the volume control somewhere around 8 o'clock until channel imbalance is acceptable. At 10 their ears would explode.
   
  That's crazy.


----------



## gnarlsagan

I have a question about Tyll's recent IF post: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-researchers-make-important-headway-understanding-headphone-response

Should the findings of these studies apply to iems, since only headphones were used? If it doesn't apply, are they relevant in another way? They talk about etymotics and their famous 3k bump and lack of bass not falling within the preferred target, but I'm not sure what leads to that conclusion.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





xnor said:


> What gets me is when people are scared of equalization but use a hot source and amp with way too high gain so that they have to fiddle with the volume control somewhere around 8 o'clock until channel imbalance is acceptable. At 10 their ears would explode.
> 
> That's crazy.


 
  Also....the person who proudly claims his system is completely devoid of EQ of any kind, and all of the nasty distortion it causes, but he's listening to commercially recorded and produced music that is loaded with all sorts of EQ, some of it far more radical than anything a home user would apply.  
   
  Add that to the craz-o-rama.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





gnarlsagan said:


> I have a question about Tyll's recent IF post: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-researchers-make-important-headway-understanding-headphone-response
> 
> Should the findings of these studies apply to iems, since only headphones were used? If it doesn't apply, are they relevant in another way? They talk about etymotics and their famous 3k bump and lack of bass not falling within the preferred target, but I'm not sure what leads to that conclusion.


 
  The findings relate to IEMS in that some IEMs include diffuse field comp, but they weren't specifically studied.  Others working on this have concluded that there is a different target curve for IEMs than other headphones.
   
  The conclusion about the 3K Etymotic bump is one that is subjective, but popularly accepted.  Probably correct. I don't own a pair of Ety's, though I almost purchased a pair once, but backed out actually for that exact reason.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Is it the outer ear or the inner ear that makes more of an impact in altering sound?


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





xnor said:


> If you don't go crazy the only problem I see is digital clipping. You can prevent that pretty easily though by using a digital preamp to pull down the EQ curve below 0 dBFS or not boosting stuff.


 
   
  This is where ReplayGain comes in handy.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> Is it the outer ear or the inner ear that makes more of an impact in altering sound?


 
  The ear is a complete system, both inner and outer ear work together as a transducer system, and the brain interprets the resulting signals. The pinna (outer ear) has a role in spacial hearing, as it alters the frequency response of hearing depending on direction of arrival, but it's only part of the spacial hearing machine which includes the head and chest as well. Because of its directional characteristics, you could say the pinna has more impact in altering sound.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> The ear is a complete system, both inner and outer ear work together as a transducer system, and the brain interprets the resulting signals. The pinna (outer ear) has a role in spacial hearing, as it alters the frequency response of hearing depending on direction of arrival, but it's only part of the spacial hearing machine which includes the head and chest as well. Because of its directional characteristics, you could say the pinna has more impact in altering sound.


 
  Thanks for the explanation. I have another question which is, why is the head and chest so significant over other parts of the body when it comes to hearing?


----------



## bigshot

You know what they say... If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're standing on your head!


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> Thanks for the explanation. I have another question which is, why is the head and chest so significant over other parts of the body when it comes to hearing?


 
  They are closest to the ears. 
   
  The head is very significant acoustically because it establishes the spacing between the ears, and provides a baffle that presents frequency dependent diffraction effects to sound arriving to the ear more opposite to it's direction of travel.  The chest provides reflection, absorption and diffraction as well, all frequency dependent.  The extremities are much smaller and farther from the hear, and so have far less impact on sound arriving at the hears.  
   
  Unless, of course, your feet smell, and nose runs. 
   
  But I find the most intriguing and complex part of the hearing system to be the brain.  It has to sort out some pretty high speed data input from a rather complex acoustic system and derive 360 degree, spherical spacial hearing that is capable of determining distance, elevation, azimuth, identify the source specifically, evaluate for potential danger, musicality, etc.  That's a whole lot of processing going on, and it's actually not all that easy to fool.


----------



## Meremoth

The great thing about science is that it can eventually be corrected and/or improved upon.  The PC world recently saw a change in scientific testing of GPU's that has solved arguments that have been raging on PC forums for over a decade.  It reminded me a lot of the arguments I see on here.  Without going into geeky details, there were two sides - a scientific side and a side that goes by what they subjectively experience.  The "scientific" people of course had graphs and tests on their side, while the subjective people could only state their opinion based upon what they experienced.  Well, new/better scientific tests show now that the scientific people were actually wrong, and the subjective people were actually correct.  Just goes to show you, you can't _only_ rely on what graphs show you, or what a book tells you.  People dismiss what their mind and heart is telling them because a piece of paper tells them they're wrong.  There's being cautious, and then there's just down right not trusting yourself.  
   
  I guess I've always rooted more for the subjective people, the ones that aren't gullible, and are smart enough to trust themselves without tricking themselves.  In person, those people seem to just be more fun to be around than the scientific curmudgeons that are hell-bent on deriding people based upon an article in a magazine they read.  Those people, time and time again, forget that science, in the present, can and will be much different 10 years from now.
   
  Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!  
   
  Okay, now I'll show myself out, no need to shove...


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> The great thing about science is that it can eventually be corrected and/or improved upon.  The PC world recently saw a change in scientific testing of GPU's that has solved arguments that have been raging on PC forums for over a decade.  It reminded me a lot of the arguments I see on here.  Without going into geeky details, there were two sides - a scientific side and a side that goes by what they subjectively experience.  The "scientific" people of course had graphs and tests on their side, while the subjective people could only state their opinion based upon what they experienced.  Well, new/better scientific tests show now that the scientific people were actually wrong, and the subjective people were actually correct.  Just goes to show you, you can't _only_ rely on what graphs show you, or what a book tells you.  People dismiss what their mind and heart is telling them because a piece of paper tells them they're wrong.  There's being cautious, and then there's just down right not trusting yourself.
> 
> I guess I've always rooted more for the subjective people, the ones that aren't gullible, and are smart enough to trust themselves without tricking themselves.  In person, those people seem to just be more fun to be around than the scientific curmudgeons that are hell-bent on deriding people based upon an article in a magazine they read.  Those people, time and time again, forget that science, in the present, can and will be much different 10 years from now.
> 
> ...


 
  If you're talking about average FPS vs. detailed frame time plots ... both are equally valid. Problems stem from people concluding that a higher average FPS will result in a smoother experience in all circumstances. They seem to ignore that average can mean mostly constant FPS or very erratic FPS. Or they ignore the additional time DX takes to finally output the frame.
   
  And you make it sound like people look _only _at a measurement and say: "that's not audible". That's not the case. There have been done scientific, subjective tests with amps, cables, DACs and audible limits of FR differences, distortion etc.  In sound science we rely a lot on such tests, because we can measure stuff far beyond audibility. What matters in the end is if it is audible to us.
   
  Also, I find it interesting how you distinguish from "scientific people" and "subjective people". Subjective tests are an important part of science. Problems come from people that don't know what the measurement data means and make wrong conclusions and people who do subjective "tests" in a non-scientific manner.
  In the GPU case it would have been as simple as setting up two computers with different GPU configurations, with the test subject not knowing which is which, switching the monitors after each trial randomly. If the test subject can make out a difference we can look at detailed measurements of what he/she might have seen. If the test subject(s) cannot make out a difference, which is the case for many blind audio tests, there very likely is none and the people arguing for 10 years in forum might just have been talking out of their behind.


----------



## Meremoth

Quote: 





xnor said:


> If you're talking about average FPS vs. detailed frame time plots ... both are equally valid. Problems stem from people concluding that a higher average FPS will result in a smoother experience in all circumstances. They seem to ignore that average can mean mostly constant FPS or very erratic FPS.
> 
> And you make it sound like people look _only _at a measurement and say: "that's not audible". That's not the case. There have been done scientific, subjective tests with amps, cables, DACs and audible limits of FR differences, distortion etc.  In sound science we rely a lot on such tests, because we can measure stuff far beyond audibility. What matters in the end is if it is audible to us.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Equally valid?  Because 60 FPS full of runt and ghost frames is equal to 60 full frames?  Wrong.  Because the time variance and frame variance is the same between Crossfire and a single GPU?  Wrong.  You need to do some more research in frame rating and crossfire and SLI technology, then do a history backlog of all the back and forth, and you'll see how it could be very comparative to the arguments displayed here.
   
  I put scientific in quotes when referring to "scientific people".  Didn't think I had to do that for each time I said it, but for you, obviously I had to.
   
  The main point I was trying to make was that science is ever changing, and the results of science today might be changed, altered, and sometimes downright disproved by the science of tomorrow.  Capiche?  Instead of focusing on that, you decide to whine about arbitrary points that are already implied.  Of course subjective tests are an important part of science, did you not even read what I wrote?  
   
  "Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!  "
   
  After all, subjective experiences is what leads to scientific tests.  Talk about talking out of your behind...
   
The entire point of my post, which went right over your head, was that subjectivity, that couldn't _at the time_ be backed up by science, was eventually proven correct BY SCIENCE!
   
Where's the mute button?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

meremoth said:


> Equally valid?  Because 60 FPS full of runt and ghost frames is equal to 60 full frames?  Wrong..  You need to do some more research in frame rating and crossfire and SLI technology, then do a history backlog of all the back and forth, and you'll see how it's very comparative to the arguments displayed here.
> 
> I put scientific in quotes when referring to "scientific people".  Didn't think I had to do that for each time I said it, but for you, obviously I had to.




Because when you go on an audio forum and bring up a totally unrelated topic as the basis for an analogy, it is the responsibility of everyone else to spend ten years studying said totally unrelated topic, otherwise you win the argument by default?

:rolleyes:


----------



## Meremoth

Quote: 





joe bloggs said:


> Because when you go on an audio forum and bring up a totally unrelated topic as the basis for an analogy, it is the responsibility of everyone else to spend ten years studying said totally unrelated topic, otherwise you win the argument by default?


 
   
  Haha, he's the one that brought up the technical aspects of it, not me.  I only used it as an analogy, that's why I specifically said I wasn't going to go into details about it, and that's why even myself referred to it an arbitrary to the main point, which both you and the other dude seem to ignore, which is that science is ever changing. 
   
  I guess I could have just said "science once said the earth was flat, now it's round", but that's a lot more general, overused, and fairly cliche.  Sorry for trying to be original. 
   
  I shouldn't have even posted in here.  Just ignore my posts and continue your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> Equally valid?  Because 60 FPS full of runt and ghost frames is equal to 60 full frames?  Wrong.  Because the time variance and frame variance is the same between Crossfire and a single GPU?  Wrong.  You need to do some more research in frame rating and crossfire and SLI technology, then do a history backlog of all the back and forth, and you'll see how it could be very comparative to the arguments displayed here.
> 
> I put scientific in quotes when referring to "scientific people".  Didn't think I had to do that for each time I said it, but for you, obviously I had to.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Funny how said gut feelings completely disappear whenever subjective impressions are solicited in a scientific manner (i.e. using blind tests) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  If gut feelings were always right, the earth should still be flat (as per your cliche 2nd analogy).


----------



## Joe Bloggs

BTW, flat earth hypothesis is more like the first "gut feeling" null hypothesis against which early science was pitted.  I'm not aware of many early scientific studies that concluded that the earth was flat...


----------



## Meremoth

Quote: 





joe bloggs said:


> Funny how said gut feelings completely disappear whenever subjective impressions are solicited in a scientific manner (i.e. using blind tests)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  What's your point?
   
  When did I ever say gut feelings were always right?  
   
  I have a feeling you could argue with a brick wall, and if that's the case, I suggest you go talk to one.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  What's your point?
> 
> When did I ever say gut feelings were always right?
> 
> I have a feeling you could argue with a brick wall, and if that's the case, I suggest you go talk to one.


 
   
  And if your intent is to have the last word in this thread, I doubt that would be possible in THIS thread... unless you get it locked somehow.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  What's your point?
> 
> When did I ever say gut feelings were always right?


 
   
  If gut feelings are not always right, why should we arbitrarily hold on judgement on various audiophile myths indefinitely just because audiophiles have this gut feeling that they are correct--despite them having been proved wrong over and over again as thoroughly as is epistemiologically possible?


----------



## Meremoth

Quote: 





joe bloggs said:


> If gut feelings are not always right, why should we arbitrarily hold on judgement on various audiophile myths indefinitely just because audiophiles have this gut feeling that they are correct--despite them having been proved wrong over and over again as thoroughly as is epistemiologically possible?


 
   
  Again, what and who are you talking to and about?  I never said anything like that.  
   
  I'm starting to think you have some sort of psychosis, or just very lonely or bored.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

You said...
  "Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!"
   
  Who should arbitrarily decide when science can be trusted and when I have to trust my gut instead?
   
  If you are disavowing yourself of this earlier statement that's fine.


----------



## xnor

Quote:
  Originally Posted by *Meremoth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif


> Equally valid?  Because 60 FPS full of runt and ghost frames is equal to 60 full frames?  Wrong.  Because the time variance and frame variance is the same between Crossfire and a single GPU?  Wrong.  You need to do some more research in frame rating and crossfire and SLI technology, then do a history backlog of all the back and forth, and you'll see how it could be very comparative to the arguments displayed here.


 
  They are valid if you understand what the numbers actually mean and use them as such, but I do not see how this has any relevance to what is being discussed here.
   
   
  Quote: 





> I put scientific in quotes when referring to "scientific people".  Didn't think I had to do that for each time I said it, but for you, obviously I had to.
> 
> The main point I was trying to make was that science is ever changing, and the results of science today might be changed, altered, and sometimes downright disproved by the science of tomorrow.  Capiche?  Instead of focusing on that, you decide to whine about arbitrary points that are already implied.  Of course subjective tests are an important part of science, did you not even read what I wrote?


 
  Sure, science is not static, but that doesn't suddenly make people hear differences they couldn't hear before.
  As for "arbitrary" points, I was just commenting on you whining about "scientific curmudgeons" and that you "can't only rely on what graphs show you" and that sort of fallacies.
   
   
  Quote: 





> "Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!  "
> After all, subjective experiences is what leads to scientific tests.  Talk about talking out of your behind...
> 
> The entire point of my post, which went right over your head, was that subjectivity, that couldn't _at the time_ be backed up by science, was eventually proven correct BY SCIENCE!
> ...


 
  Gut feeling, sure, science might just prove your gut wrong and I'd argue most of the time does. That's why we have science in the first place.
   
  I agree with experiences leading to tests. No need to get derogatory.
   
  Maybe you should make the actual point you're trying to make instead of raising "arbitrary" points and using analogies. Would lead to less misunderstandings, which I apologize for if it helps.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





joe bloggs said:


> If gut feelings are not always right, why should we arbitrarily hold on judgement on various audiophile myths indefinitely just because audiophiles have this gut feeling that they are correct--despite them having been proved wrong over and over again as thoroughly as is epistemiologically possible?


 
  To justify the empty wallet!


----------



## Meremoth

Quote: 





joe bloggs said:


> You said...
> "Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!"
> 
> Who should arbitrarily decide when science can be trusted and when I have to trust my gut instead?
> ...


 
   
  You are over-analyzing this way beyond death.

 Only you can decide when, what, and who to trust.  
   
  I'm not on either side of the audio debates, I'm brand spanking new to the audiophile world.  Only reason I said I rooted for the "subjective" (for lack of a better word) guys was because they are the underdog, obviously, with all the facts, spreadsheets, and data in their face and to the contrary of what they believe.  It's fun to root for the underdogs and hope they might, someday, turn out to be proven correct.  I only wanted to point out it has happened before in other electronic communities.
   
  Yet you seem intent on trying to grammatically nitpick attack my posts.  Maybe I did something to offend you?  If so, sorry, but not really.
   
  You have Skype?  I think we should finish this convo face-to-face, so I'm not misinterpreting any of your intentions in this discussion.  If you behave I might even slip you a lil' nip, we'll see...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> You are over-analyzing this way beyond death.
> 
> Only you can decide when, what, and who to trust.
> 
> ...


 
   
  There is objective information within the science itself to show how solid and beyond doubt (or not) the state of each branch of science is at.
   
  Funny, I'm not aware of a definition of "underdog" that involves them dominating every subforum of the premier forum of headphones on the WWW, save for one pitiful little thread in one pitiful little subforum reserved for the "overdogs".  In the cable subforum, even mention of double blind testing is explicitly banned.  Not a month goes by without another member of the shrinking clan of objective "overdogs" being banned from the forum altogether.  xnor here for example was banned just two days ago and I feared the worst and thought him gone forever.  This very thread was locked afterwards and the running joke was what we should call this place next time if "Saloon" gets locked.  Cafe? Halfway house?  I vote for "refugee camp" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  You didn't do much to offend me other than barge in pretty much the sole refugee camp for the objective "overdogs" rooting for the "underdogs"...
   
  In other words, if you intend to root for the "underdogs", you're barking up the wrong tree, indeed...
   
  If you think people going (only?) by their gut are the underdogs in the audiophile world, you are indeed too much of a newbie around these parts...


----------



## Meremoth

Quote:


joe bloggs said:


> There is objective information within the science itself to show how solid and beyond doubt (or not) the state of each branch of science is at.
> 
> Funny, I'm not aware of a definition of "underdog" that involves them dominating every subforum of the premier forum of headphones on the WWW, save for one pitiful little thread in one pitiful little subforum reserved for the "overdogs".  In the cable subforum, even mention of double blind testing is explicitly banned.  Not a month goes by without another member of the shrinking clan of objective "overdogs" being banned from the forum altogether.  xnor here for example was banned just two days ago and I feared the worst and thought him gone forever.  This very thread was locked afterwards and the running joke was what we should call this place next time if "Saloon" gets locked.  Cafe? Halfway house?  I vote for "refugee camp"
> 
> ...


 
   
  Hmph, could have sworn you "overdogs" were the majority.  Maybe I haven't branched out enough into the other forums, but the only thing I have seen so far is the "overdogs" attacking/ganging up on the "underdogs" unprovoked, and a lot of times their attacks spill over onto the innocent who are here just trying to learn.
   
  Funny how our biases can change our perspective of reality, huh?  

 The fact you thinking I'm barking up any tree shows how overly-defensive and paranoid you are.  Suppose I was playing devil's advocate, but didn't actually expect to get Satan himself.  Sorry you're that sketched out to be here, but no need attacking random people because of unrelated negative experiences you've had.
   
  How 'bout we split a Xanax?  You ready to hop on Skype?  PM your information.  The tone I'm getting from your text is pretty foul.  Perhaps body language can help clear some of that up, unless you have BO, get it?  Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> Hmph, could have sworn you "overdogs" were the majority.  Maybe I haven't branched out enough into the other forums, but the only thing I have seen so far is the "overdogs" attacking/ganging up on the "underdogs" unprovoked, and a lot of times their attacks spill over onto the innocent who are here just trying to learn.
> 
> Funny how our biases can change our perspective of reality, huh?
> 
> ...


 

 Lol, what metaphor do you suggest I use instead then?  pm sent.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> That's a whole lot of processing going on, and it's actually not all that easy to fool.


 
  Doesn't seem to apply for audiophiles.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> Hmph, could have sworn you "overdogs" were the majority.  Maybe I haven't branched out enough into the other forums, but the only thing I have seen so far is the "overdogs" attacking/ganging up on the "underdogs" unprovoked, and a lot of times their attacks spill over onto the innocent who are here just trying to learn.
> 
> Funny how our biases can change our perspective of reality, huh?
> 
> ...


 
  The word placebo is deemed offensive in head-fi and a worthy enough reason to get a thread locked. Should clearly illustrate who are the underdogs!


----------



## gnarlsagan

Maybe what Meremoth was trying to say is that sometimes people get overzealous promoting one particular sound signature as THE MOST ACCURATE REPRODUCTION OF SOUND IN EXISTENCE lol. And sometimes that happens. But remember there are competing standards (with headphones and iems not amps), and those standards sound different, like what was illustrated with the recent Olive-Welti tests. Some people have been insisting the old DF standard *sounded* wrong, and with these new studies they might be vindicated. This is just one (and maybe the only) example that I think fits what Meremoth was referring to. 

Of course the testing is still the basis for all these findings, it's just when describing accurate sound signatures in headphones and iems we should be somewhat open to differing opinions, because no one standard explains accuracy.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> Equally valid?  Because 60 FPS full of runt and ghost frames is equal to 60 full frames?  Wrong.


 
   
  How about 44,100 samples per second? Is that enough?
   
  There is a limit to how much is enough.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> I guess I could have just said "science once said the earth was flat, now it's round", but that's a lot more general, overused, and fairly cliche.


 
  I think you could say that the religious authorities who propagated the flat earth theory were subjectivists, and Magellan was an objectivist.


----------



## Meremoth

Underdogs, overdogs, agnosticdogs, and cartoon dogs... in the end we're nothing but a bunch of scroungy mutts.  
   
   
  gnarlsagan got it!  Of course astrophysicists kinda gotta be open minded, don't they?


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> Underdogs, overdogs, agnosticdogs, and cartoon dogs... in the end we're nothing but a bunch of scroungy mutts.
> 
> 
> gnarlsagan got it!  Of course[size=12.666666984558105px] [/size][size=12.800000190734863px]astrophysicists kinda gotta be open minded, don't they?    [/size]


 
  I am glad gnarsagan got it, and when I read your posts Meremoth, that is about how I thought you intended them.  That a standard of accuracy might be overbearing, and in the end not necessarily correct. I think what objectives try to do is be sure when something is heard there is really an objective difference, and the difference isn't due to factors unrelated to physical sound characteristics.  One can put forth a proposed goal of frequency response for accurate headphones.  That would be open to taste and other factors.  One can also put forth the idea something sounds different upstream.  If simple measurement show that the sound coming out of the headphone in fact did not change, then whatever happened upstream isn't responsuble for it.  Often the heard difference is not due to a physical sound difference, but due to other factors.  Objective minded audiophiles try and not fool themselves on such matters in order to make headway with actual problems or to implement genuine sound reproduction improvements.  
   
  So objective audiophiles cannot tell you the one true way your headphones should sound best to you. Only you can decide that.  They can tell you however that changing the digital cable feeding your DAC didn't make any change in the sound you hear with your headphones.  Some people claim to hear those differences from changing an upstream cable, but those in fact don't usually change the signal at all so cannot be responsible for any heard difference.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





gnarlsagan said:


> Maybe what Meremoth was trying to say is [...]


 
  Thank you for translating. I felt he talked about something completely different (like hearing differences between cables, amps, DACs ...), but I'm happy we finally somehow got it.
   
  What personal preference for different sound signatures has to do with validity of DF... I really don't know.
   
  Just like with the previous example, diffuse field equalization didn't somehow get "invalidated" or is now "wrong". No, it's still as valid as before.
  Using it as equalization target for headphones might not be the best idea, and a quick comparison with calibrated speakers (if you even need that) will show that it's "off", but that doesn't change the result of a power sum of all HRTFs in 3D. Just by looking at the definition we can see that it's not an ideal target for headphones.
   
  I always equalized my headphones and used crossfeed to sound like calibrated speakers. More or less DF equalized headphones are definitely a better starting point than headphones with a seemingly random response. But all of that just matters if you're interested in accurate reproduction and are not scared of DSP.


----------



## miceblue

Hi all, I'll be subscribing to this thread too. I'm interested in expanding my knowledge in the science of audio. 
   
  I'm guessing most of you know this already but Tyll of Innerfidelity just posted a new article on his website:
  http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-researchers-make-important-headway-understanding-headphone-response
   
  Quote: 





> *My Closing Thoughts*
> I believe the work being done by Dr. Olive and his team brought out in these three papers represents a significant step forward in the development better headphone for us all. To summarize:
> 
> The first paper shows that there is a direct relationship between measured performance of headphones and the listening experience. Listeners strongly tend to prefer neutral, even amplitude response, and good bass extension.
> ...


 
  I'll have to read the article and papers when I get the chance but those closing thoughts were interesting to me.


----------



## uchihaitachi

miceblue said:


> Hi all, I'll be subscribing to this thread too. I'm interested in expanding my knowledge in the science of audio.
> 
> I'm guessing most of you know this already but Tyll of Innerfidelity just posted a new article on his website:
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-researchers-make-important-headway-understanding-headphone-response
> ...




Have a read of Sean Olive's blog. It has a much more in depth analysis of the experiment mentioned on Tyll's website.


----------



## Don Hills

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *uchihaitachi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 
   
  Accurate identification of sounds and source directions is a positive surivival attribute, so it's not surprising that it's a hard to fool system.
  You have to want to be fooled...


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





don hills said:


> Accurate identification of sounds and source directions is a positive surivival attribute, so it's not surprising that it's a hard to fool system.
> You have to want to be fooled...


 
  Darwinian evolution is trumped by head-fi indoctrination.


----------



## Meremoth

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> How about 44,100 samples per second? Is that enough?
> 
> There is a limit to how much is enough.


 
   
  Your snide, spammy one liners are incredibly annoying.
   
  You'd think after 10,000 posts someone would learn how to multi-quote instead of spamming 2-3 posts in a row...


----------



## bigshot

It wasn't intended to be snide. You were talking about video frame rates and interlacing. The equivalent to that in digital audio is sampling rate. 44,100 samples per second / clean, no interlacing.

Just talk with us. We're happy to talk with you. No reason to get all huffy.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bigshot said:


> It wasn't intended to be snide. You were talking about video frame rates and interlacing. The equivalent to that in digital audio is sampling rate. 44,100 samples per second / clean, no interlacing.
> 
> Just talk with us. We're happy to talk with you. No reason to get all huffy.




Pretty sure that's not quite what he's talking about. He better explain the analogy himself about how video cards cheating on benchmarks by spewing out half-finished frames (or whatever he's talking about) is relevant to whatever audio issue he wants to discuss (since not even that can be ascertained anymore) or he better not blame people here for not getting it or acting like he's winning the argument because we don't get it. This is not a computer gaming forum after all. 

Pretty sure he's just stirring things up in this subforum for the lulz right now. He asked for my skype contact but never added me. Sounds like "BO" is something very insulting that I don't know about too. We should probably just start reporting his posts and see if the mods would lock him out of this threa, this subforum, or something. God knows hes got plenty of room to play outside here and they have banned enough of us from the whole forum outright...


----------



## Meremoth

Quote: 





joe bloggs said:


> Pretty sure that's not quite what he's talking about. He better explain the analogy himself about how video cards cheating on benchmarks by spewing out half-finished frames (or whatever he's talking about) is relevant to whatever audio issue he wants to discuss (since not even that can be ascertained anymore) or he better not blame people here for not getting it or acting like he's winning the argument because we don't get it. This is not a computer gaming forum after all.
> 
> Pretty sure he's just stirring things up in this subforum for the lulz right now. He asked for my skype contact but never added me. Sounds like "BO" is something very insulting that I don't know about too. We should probably just start reporting his posts and see if the mods would lock him out of this threa, this subforum, or something. God knows hes got plenty of room to play outside here and they have banned enough of us from the whole forum outright...


 
   
  All you have done is ignore my main point and focus on my analogy that was only meant to be an analogy.  What's your obsession of only focusing on that aspect of it and nothing else?  You keep posting over and over about it.  Are you finished?  Do you feel better now?
   
  Also, what's the deal with you butting in when I'm talking to other people that has nothing to do with you?  Do you have no self control?  Are you that obsessed with my analogy?  You realize how hypocritical you're being, yes?
   
  Just now saw your PM.  I'm getting on Skype right now, we're going to hash this out. 
   
  Edit:  Don't dodge, Joe.  I'm waiting for you to accept my request on Skype.  You're not going to talk all big and bad and then shy away, are you?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

You mean you can lash out at people everytime they respond to your analogy but people can't respond in kind? 

And only the person you wrote to is allowed to respond to what you wrote? Go start a pm exchange if that's what you want.


----------



## Meremoth

Quote: 





joe bloggs said:


> You mean you can lash out at people everytime they respond to your analogy but people can't respond in kind?
> 
> And only the person you wrote to is allowed to respond to what you wrote? Go start a pm exchange if that's what you want.


 
   
  That is what I want, that's why I asked you to Skype to discuss this. 
   
  I'm here to learn, not to troll, not to fight, not to argue.  I'm new to the high-end headphone world and eager to learn.

 You're acting like a rabid dog.  You seem offended at my initial post which wasn't meant to offend at all.  You also seem to misinterpret my jokes (BO = body odor). I was attempting to break the ice and calm things down, but I guess I'm just not that funny.
   
  Anyway, you seem to have an axe to grind and have had some bad experiences in your past here, but please don't use me to vent your frustrations.  That isn't fair, nor is it a good way to welcome new members.  Thanks.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

.


----------



## Meremoth

Thanks for accepting my call, Joe, glad we worked everything out.  You're much nicer than I expected.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

And you too


----------



## warrenpchi

Okay, well at least part of this has a happy ending.


----------



## Steve Eddy

No bloodshed. How boring. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  se


----------



## bigshot

Is it just me or do people come in here lately all ready to create a fight? A question is asked, it's answered straightforwardly and all of a sudden it's as if their mother has been insulted. I honestly find it to be pretty baffling.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Is it just me or do people come in here lately all ready to create a fight? A question is asked, it's answered straightforwardly and all of a sudden it's as if their mother has been insulted. I honestly find it to be pretty baffling.


 
   
  What'd you say about my mother?
   
  se


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Is it just me or do people come in here lately all ready to create a fight? A question is asked, it's answered straightforwardly and all of a sudden it's as if their mother has been insulted. I honestly find it to be pretty baffling.


 
  The word placebo is insulting. That already defies all logic!


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> What'd you say about my mother?


 
  He called her an 'it' and pretty and baffling. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
   
  Nonsense aside, you're not alone bigshot. Dunno why they take even short, completely unemotional replies as insult.
  It's like switching from an initial attack mode ("I'll show y'all you dern sciency guys who's the boss here!")  into defensive mode after getting a reply they do not seem to be able to comprehend.


----------



## bigshot

It's a lot easier just to politely ask for clarification.


----------



## vertical

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Is it just me or do people come in here lately all ready to create a fight? A question is asked, it's answered straightforwardly and all of a sudden it's as if their mother has been insulted. I honestly find it to be pretty baffling.


 
   
  I notice the pattern as well...and I've only been around here for half a year.
   
  I'm also a car guy and used to frequent those special interest forums for many years. When a sub-forum has special guidelines that vary from the other parts of the site, I recall it being made clearer up front. For example, some had a "sticky" thread right up front (the 1st thread in the sub-forum) with some guideline type title (e.g., Sound Science forum FAQs [or manifesto]...READ BEFORE POSTING).
   
  Maybe Sound Science should have a FAQ or some such up front? Maybe it would prevent at least some of the messy confrontations...just a thought


----------



## uchihaitachi

Maybe a warning picture like this (which I came by today on 9gag of all places):


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





vertical said:


> Maybe Sound Science should have a FAQ or some such up front?


 
   
  It used to say in the description of the forum that Sound Science was the only forum where DBT was allowed to be discussed.


----------



## vertical

Well, the flame wars are sometimes entertaining...Yet if it continues, this place is headed towards something like a Jerry Springer flavor of Sound Science


----------



## bigshot

It's like the Romans and the Huns.


----------



## Meremoth

*delete*


----------



## bigshot

It shouldn't matter if you stack components on top of each other. If they do cause interference, they are remarkably poorly designed.

I'll let someone else answer the impedance question. That isn't my ballywick.

Solid state amps are almost always neutral. I think the main reason for tube amps is to have the nice glowing tubes. Sound quality is better with solid state.


----------



## ToddTheMetalGod

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It shouldn't matter if you stack components on top of each other. If they do cause interference, they are remarkably poorly designed.
> 
> I'll let someone else answer the impedance question. That isn't my ballywick.
> 
> Solid state amps are almost always neutral. I think the main reason for tube amps is to have the nice glowing tubes. Sound quality is better with solid state.


 
   
  I don't think that's always necessarily true about valve amplification. Valves are better at providing voltage than solid-state, but solid-state are better at providing current. Also, from what I've heard tubes don't distort as harshly near an amplifier's maximum power output (probably do to their intentional distortion covering it up). When tubes first started production they had unintentional distortion due to their manufacturing process and the technology of the time, higher-end tubes used to be neutral like solid-state. Tubes can be neutral, but because people like the "warm, vintage tube sound" manufacturers continue to produce them to  sound this way. Sound flavor is usually intentionally done by the manufacturer. Correct me if any of this information is wrong though, I'm still learning about audio.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> *delete*


 
  When you delete a post completely you basically corrupt the thread.  Some forums will boot you for doing this. There could be a response being written to your post at the time you delete it, which will then make no sense once it's posted.  It's just not good forum conduct.


----------



## Meremoth

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> When you delete a post completely you basically corrupt the thread.  Some forums will boot you for doing this. There could be a response being written to your post at the time you delete it, which will then make no sense once it's posted.  It's just not good forum conduct.


 
   
  It's was a cross-post, which is against the rules.  Only reason I posted it was because the thread it was originally in was temporarily locked, but I thought it was going to be permanently locked, so I copied and pasted it here.  
   
  Sorry, jaddie, but I'm not going to break the rules just because you want me to.  I'm going to go by the forum's conduct code, not yours.
   
  Also, I don't appreciate being bossed around/threatened by a non-mod.  Most forums, I'm aware of, boot non-mods for attempting to moderate.  You need to take that garbage elsewhere.  
   
  But if you want to see the original post, here it is:
   
http://www.head-fi.org/t/669903/headphones-needing-power/60#post_9579177


----------



## jaddie

There's a couple of concepts here that could stand a bit of clarification.
  Quote: 





toddthemetalgod said:


> I don't think that's always necessarily true about valve amplification. Valves are better at providing voltage than solid-state, but solid-state are better at providing current.


 
  This idea comes from the fact that tubes mostly operate with high plate voltages and low plate currents, where transistors operate at low voltages and higher currents.  However, neither actually supplies voltage or current, it comes from the power supply.  The active devices modulate that power supply's output, and the result drives the load.  The most ideal situation would be if the output of the circuit can drive the load directly, and in the case of valve circuits operating at high voltages and low currents, a transformer is required to drive a low impedance speaker.  The transformer is itself a source of distortion, and a fairly significant one.  Transistor output circuits can drive speakers directly.
   
  Quote: 





toddthemetalgod said:


> When tubes first started production they had unintentional distortion due to their manufacturing process and the technology of the time, higher-end tubes used to be neutral like solid-state.


 
   Neither valves nor transistors are particularly neutral by themselves, both have a smaller range of more or less linear operation, and a progressively larger range with more distortion.  Both benefit from designs that linearize the total circuit, usually through application of negative feedback, and in the case of valves, that feedback loop usually includes the output transformer. However, there are trade-offs to be made with the application of feedback.  If by "higher-end" tubes vs their earlier predecessors we mean more sophisticated tubes like beam power tetrodes or power pentodes as compared to earlier triodes, the neutrality came from the ability to operate those tubes in more sophisticated circuits and take advantage of their additional electrodes.  You can operate a pentode as a triode if you want, but nobody really wants.  


> toddthemetalgod said:
> 
> 
> > Also, from what I've heard tubes don't distort as harshly near an amplifier's maximum power output (probably do to their intentional distortion covering it up).


 
   
   Well, the statement is kind of loaded.  Tube circuits be designed to slide into clipping more gently and softer, but it also has a lot to do with power supply design, and what's going on in the output transformer.  Another way to look at it is that a tube amp could provide gently distorted audio all the time, and just keep getting more distorted as levels go up, but a typical SS amp will play clean and distortion free for it's entire operating range right up until it clips, which will be kind of nasty, but you'll have clean audio up until that point.  Both methods have their points.
  Quote:


toddthemetalgod said:


> Tubes can be neutral, but because people like the "warm, vintage tube sound" manufacturers continue to produce them to  sound this way. Sound flavor is usually intentionally done by the manufacturer. Correct me if any of this information is wrong though, I'm still learning about audio.


 
  This is an interesting and astute statement.  What's the point of building a tube amp that sounds like the typical SS amp?  None, you want  your amp with big glowing bottles to sound different than a SS amp.  That's part of why there are small, under-powered tube amps made today, designs that starve the output tubes for plate voltage, circuits without adequate negative feedback, and class A circuits, which everybody thinks should be great (class A is good, right?) but often operate beyond the linear part of their characteristic curve, and inefficient, and very low power.  Well, all of that will sound different from a solid state, high power, low impedance amp.  And, speaking of that little impedance thingy, it's darn hard to get a tube amp's source impedance anywhere near as low as a SS amp, mostly because plate impedances are high, and that means a transformer.  So a tube amp has a higher source impedance, and a speaker's impedance curve now translates into an inverse response curve.  Sure, that'll sound different too.  
   
  But you don't need a tube amp for any of this.  You can simulate the effects of distortion, higher source Z and response variations while using a SS amp.  Been done, proven, marketed with limited success.  But ultimately, even though the SS amp that sounded like a tube amp was indistinguishable from a high-end tube amp sonically, it ultimately failed as a product because it wasn't as much fun.  It didn't heat up, have big glowing glass, and weigh a ton.  You can't separate the physical and visual impact of tubes from the experience without taking the fun out of tubes.  If you didn't know the amp had tubes, it would just sound like a strangely distorted amp.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





meremoth said:


> It's was a cross-post, which is against the rules.  Only reason I posted it was because the thread it was originally in was temporarily locked, but I thought it was going to be permanently locked, so I copied and pasted it here.
> 
> Sorry, jaddie, but I'm not going to break the rules just because you want me to.  I'm going to go by the forum's conduct code, not yours.
> 
> ...


 
  Hmmm. Ok, sorry.  I don't want anyone to break the rules.  I don't have a code either.  And I'm sorry if it seemed I was bossing or threatening.  I did have a reply to your post, but your post vanished.  
   
  Taking my garbage else where.  Now.


----------



## ToddTheMetalGod

Thanks for clearing that up, and teaching me about differences between solid-state and valve amplifiers Jaddie 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I wasn't trying to misinform anyone, I'm still learning about this stuff myself.


----------



## miceblue

Speaking of tubes, what does tube rolling do? Do different tubes introduce different amounts of distortion?
  I'm assuming op-amp rolling exists too but if a circuit is optimised for X op-amp, Y op-amp may not be optimal.


----------



## xnor

Not only not be optimal, but swapping op-amps "blindly" can in fact lead to oscillations which can cause damage.


----------



## esldude

Yeah, tube rolling in simpler circuits the variance in some tubes can make changes in the sound or at least potentially can.  And I have heard of people doing the same for op-amps.  Op amps tend to be more linear when used properly so I would think usually unless switching to an op-amp that wasn't really fit for the circuit you would get no real audible difference.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> This is an interesting and astute statement.  What's the point of building a tube amp that sounds like the typical SS amp?  None, you want  your amp with big glowing bottles to sound different than a SS amp.  *That's part of why there are small, under-powered tube amps made today, designs that starve the output tubes for plate voltage, circuits without adequate negative feedback*, and class A circuits, which everybody thinks should be great (class A is good, right?) but often operate beyond the linear part of their characteristic curve, and inefficient, and very low power.  Well, all of that will sound different from a solid state, high power, low impedance amp.  And, speaking of that little impedance thingy, it's darn hard to get a tube amp's source impedance anywhere near as low as a SS amp, mostly because plate impedances are high, and that means a transformer.  So a tube amp has a higher source impedance, and a speaker's impedance curve now translates into an inverse response curve.  Sure, that'll sound different too.


 
   
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but most valve amps don't use NFB because it's not plausible in the design. Tying the feedback loop to the output with an OPT would introduce phase shift and all sorts of other problems. Rod Elliott wrote about this a little bit. Maybe there are a few designs out there that manage to do so, but I'm not aware of them.
   
  Also, since most valves are constricted to fairly low gain, trading it in with NFB doesn't make sense. There's no need to use NFB to stabilize the circuit like you would with an op-amp (infinite gain). Saying that valve amps need "adequate negative feedback" is a bit misleading methinks.


----------



## jcx

triodes have V feedback built in - the mu parameter
   
  its difficult to build any amplifying circuit of any utility without feedback - but it may be local feedback, not global - certainly global feedback around output transformers is limited by the transformer bandwidth/phase shift
   
  some marketing "no feedback" amplifiers try to deny that local or internal feedback is exactly that, negative feedback


----------



## esldude

Quote: 





ojneg said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but most valve amps don't use NFB because it's not plausible in the design. Tying the feedback loop to the output with an OPT would introduce phase shift and all sorts of other problems. Rod Elliott wrote about this a little bit. Maybe there are a few designs out there that manage to do so, but I'm not aware of them.
> 
> Also, since most valves are constricted to fairly low gain, trading it in with NFB doesn't make sense. There's no need to use NFB to stabilize the circuit like you would with an op-amp (infinite gain). Saying that valve amps need "adequate negative feedback" is a bit misleading methinks.


 

 Yeah, I would say you are incorrect in the idea most valve amps don't use NFB.  Most have a small amount of global NFB.  You can't use too much or the circuit will oscillate due to phase shifting.  Of course in the last 20 years many triodes SE, and PP have been put forward without global feedback due to the idea NFB is always bad.  Even so I believe most you encounter do have NFB.  The NFB used in tube amps is normally not a large amount.  This will lower distortion a bit, extend bandwidth a bit, and lower output impedance some.  It helps to have quality OPT's.
   
  This page has pertinent formulas for designing tube feedback circuits. Very near the bottom of this long page are two graphs of response for an amp with and without feedback. In this case 12 dB feedback.  One shows it without phase compensation in the feedback path and one with phase compensation. 
   
  http://www.turneraudio.com.au/basic-tube-3.html


----------



## Kaffeemann

Hello friends.
   
  If you had to choose one of those IEMs by looking at it's measurements, which one would it be?
   
  http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/LGQuadbeatHSSF420.pdf
  http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SteelseriesFluxInEar.pdf


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Quote: 





kaffeemann said:


> Hello friends.
> 
> If you had to choose one of those IEMs by looking at it's measurements, which one would it be?
> 
> ...


 
  assuming that's the sound signature you want, I would go with LG


----------



## uchihaitachi

LG


----------



## miceblue

LG - "Life is Good"
Yeah the measurements for the LG look better unless you prefer the darker sound of the SteelSeries.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





jcx said:


> triodes have V feedback built in - the mu parameter
> 
> its difficult to build any amplifying circuit of any utility without feedback - but it may be local feedback, not global - certainly global feedback around output transformers is limited by the transformer bandwidth/phase shift
> 
> some marketing "no feedback" amplifiers try to deny that local or internal feedback is exactly that, negative feedback


 

 Local feedback for sure. When people talk NFB, I generally think of a global loop from the output tied back to an inverting input.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> LG - "Life is Good"
> Yeah the measurements for the LG look better unless you prefer the darker sound of the SteelSeries.


 
  LG used to be lucky goldstar XD


----------



## ev13wt

While an objective approach to this hobby seems like a sane one, the fact of the matter is that that stuff doesn't sell. And in the end, it's about the dollar. And if enough people run around telling others that the 50 dollar China no name amp/dac simply does the exact same thing as a 1000 dollar woo audio firefly, then this hurts business.

I mean, who would buy an audio magazine with titles on the cover like: 

Big amplifier test: They all sounded the same!
Audio myths revealed: Those high end racks could be made of bricks no sonical differences found.
Interview with dre: My headphones sound like crap but they have dat thug life yolo factor!


So, I always try to educate, but not flame. I know it's hard and I miss a step once in a while and go postal on a cable guy.

I feel that the above woo audio IS worth the money, just not purely following rational thinking and measurements. A WA2 is just plain porn in my eyes. It looks sexy as hell and is built really nicely out of good looking aluminum et cetera.

It's just when some 16 yo spends a bunch of his hard earned paper boy cash on, lets say a cable upgrade, that I feel the need to jump in with facts.

Why is it that in other industries these things are considered plain and real fraud but in the audio industry sell like hot cakes without remorse? And should I start making "audiophile products" too?


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





ev13wt said:


> I feel that the above woo audio IS worth the money, just not purely following rational thinking and measurements. A WA2 is just plain porn in my eyes. It looks sexy as hell and is built really nicely out of good looking aluminum et cetera.


 
   
  I look at it this way... If I'm going to spend a grand on a good looking, sexy hunk of metal, I think I'd like it to be a bronze of a female nude.


----------



## ev13wt

bigshot said:


> I look at it this way... If I'm going to spend a grand on a good looking, sexy hunk of metal, I think I'd like it to be a bronze of a female nude.




But, does she have tubes that glow? no.


----------



## Don Hills

Quote: 





ev13wt said:


> But, does she have tubes that glow? no.


 
   
  She might...
  "Danger!  High Voltage" by Electric Six:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4gyJsY0mc


----------



## ev13wt

don hills said:


> She might...
> "Danger!  High Voltage" by Electric Six:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4gyJsY0mc





hahaha nice one. I actually listen to the whole song too.


----------



## warrenpchi

Quote: 





kamijoismyhero said:


> assuming that's the sound signature you want


----------



## gnarlsagan

So this program by Harman was posted in another forum here; it's called How to Listen. It offers examples of different types of distortion that users can classify. Legit or no legit? It seems like it could be a very helpful tool.


----------



## uchihaitachi

gnarlsagan said:


> So this program by Harman was posted in another forum here; it's called How to Listen. It offers examples of different types of distortion that users can classify. Legit or no legit? It seems like it could be a very helpful tool.




Very legit!


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





gnarlsagan said:


> So this program by Harman was posted in another forum here; it's called How to Listen. It offers examples of different types of distortion that users can classify. Legit or no legit? It seems like it could be a very helpful tool.


 
   
  If you look at research papers out of that group, there certainly is a case for it working.
   
  So-called "trained listeners" (using this program) that they use for their research have been shown to outperform other groups. Look at a comparison of relative F-test values and some discussion here, which was prior to the release of the software:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html
   
  Some of the later papers and blog entries have some more info on the performance of the trained listeners.


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> If you look at research papers out of that group, there certainly is a case for it working.
> 
> So-called "trained listeners" (using this program) that they use for their research have been shown to outperform other groups. Look at a comparison of relative F-test values and some discussion here, which was prior to the release of the software:
> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html
> ...


 
   
  Awesome link, thanks! Didn't realize Sean Olive had a blog. Seems trained listeners are to be taken quite seriously.


----------



## bigshot

Do they define what it is that trained listeners can hear? I would think that artifacting you could train to hear. Super audible frequencies, no.


----------



## uchihaitachi

bigshot said:


> Do they define what it is that trained listeners can hear? I would think that artifacting you could train to hear. Super audible frequencies, no.




It is an artifacting spotting training software.


----------



## krismusic

Well. I have been listening to Spotify Premium recently thinking that I was getting 320kbps. Just discovered that I had it set on lowest quality. 96kbps!!! So that shows how critical my listening is that I had not realised. Maybe I need training. Hopefully by a very attractive female audio dominatrix rather than Bigshot in a gimp suit! The increase in quality is one hell of a free upgrade though!


----------



## Steve Eddy

krismusic said:


> Well. I have been listening to Spotify Premium recently thinking that I was getting 320kbps. Just discovered that I had it set on lowest quality. 96kbps!!! So that shows how critical my listening is that I had not realised. Maybe I need training. Hopefully by a very attractive female audio dominatrix rather than Bigshot in a gimp suit! The increase in quality is one hell of a free upgrade though!




Speaking for myself, when I listen to music for pleasure (and I can't really think of any other reason), I'm not focusing on every little fly speck. To me, that's listening to "sound" rather than music. When listening to music, there are things about the "sound" that simply don't make it to the conscious level. 

But there are a lot of people out there who seem to be absolutely fixated on "sound." That's all well and good, but it's not for me.

se


----------



## bigshot

Most of what I listen to is performed on acoustic instruments, so I'm pretty sensitive to electronic sounding distortion and digital artifacting. I don't mind limited response so much.

Do they have gimp suits at Amazon? I need to order one.


----------



## mikeaj

You can listen to music to analyze its structure (instrumentation, form, etc.), transcribe it, understand the nuances of the performance, etc. It might be a bit more difficult if the response of the playback system is imbalanced or there's some gross distortion. Or even higher noise / artifacting / potentially high-frequency cutoff of very lossy music. But I don't think most audiophiles are musicians or musicologists in that sense.
   
  I don't really understand people listening for sound either, particularly to enjoy music. Though I legitimately wonder if some people pay more attention to timbre than I do. Do people with musical training focus on different aspects of music in general?


----------



## krismusic

I think we are into the nub of it here Steve Eddy and mikeaj. 
I have said in other posts that I really question this "critical listening" idea that the essence of the music resides in micro details that you would need bat like hearing to detect but somehow "convey emotion". 
Fortunes are spent trying to extract this information. I would be very interested to know if there is any objective basis for the premise.
I am fussy about music reproduction (and I begin to think that audiophile is a dressed up term for my being fussy). 
All things being equal as long as there is no obvious deficiency in reproduction I suggest that the artistic quality of the Music is what connects with us. 
Bigshot. Your old suit is fine. Don't just upgrade for the sake of it!


----------



## bigshot

I haven't found artifacting to be "micro details". In general, artifacts are big ugly splats. It's just that in electronic music, a big ugly digital splat can get hidden behind a bit of guitar distortion or synthesizer bleat. If you are used to listening to acoustic music, you don't need a heck of a lot of training to hear digital artifacting. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

But the nice thing about artifacting is that it is all or nothing. Something artifacts or it renders properly. There's no shades of gray inbetween. Once you find the bitrate that can sucessfully encode music, anything beyond that line is fine.

When people refer to microdetails, I think they are usually referring to the effect of masking. As you balance your frequency response, details that were covered up before start to come forward. It hard to know exactly what people are referring to with vague audiophile terms like "micro details" but that seems like a more likely explanation than artifacting.


----------



## krismusic

I agree that digital artefacts are unpleasant and obtrusive. I was sort of relating this to other threads where we have discussed audio myths and snake oil salesmen. I would suggest that the "last 1% " of audio reproduction is where these thrive. Would anyone like to put forward a sensible reason why a £20,000 CD player would sound better than a £500 player for instance?


----------



## xnor

Fairy dust polished laser lenses?


----------



## krismusic

I did say sensible.


----------



## xnor

Hmm, I see no reason why a CD player in this day and age should cost anywhere near 20k. Sure, "boutique" audio companies can sell them at whatever price they want and some people are still gonna buy that stuff but that doesn't mean the manufacturer did any novel research or innovation or is using different parts than other companies which sell their players for reasonable prices. Sorry if I'm not helpful at all.
   
  But one thing: I don't remember the company name but they sell expensive, shiny CD players with tubes and blue leds -- and they perform abysmally. I guess people hear with their eyes.


----------



## miceblue

Random post, but have you guys heard of this before? It's the ultimate insanity-inducing torture chamber that is literally isolated from the rest of the world.

 http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/04/03/daily-circuit-quiet-room


----------



## gnarlsagan

bigshot said:


> I haven't found artifacting to be "micro details". In general, artifacts are big ugly splats. It's just that in electronic music, a big ugly digital splat can get hidden behind a bit of guitar distortion or synthesizer bleat. If you are used to listening to acoustic music, you don't need a heck of a lot of training to hear digital artifacting. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
> 
> But the nice thing about artifacting is that it is all or nothing. Something artifacts or it renders properly. There's no shades of gray inbetween. Once you find the bitrate that can sucessfully encode music, anything beyond that line is fine.
> 
> When people refer to microdetails, I think they are usually referring to the effect of masking. As you balance your frequency response, details that were covered up before start to come forward. It hard to know exactly what people are referring to with vague audiophile terms like "micro details" but that seems like a more likely explanation than artifacting.




I've been wondering lately if there's any attribute of an amp that would make it more "resolving" than another amp. I've especially been looking at differences between op-amps. "More resolving" and "micro-details" are terms used often. Do these terms have any merit?


----------



## jcx

are there any of these comments left after filtering out "just listen" anecdotes, only crediting Level Matched, Double Blind listening tests?
   
   
  perceived differences can come from lack of matching loudness when/if the comparisons are done closely enough in time to to involve more than the very few bits that make it into long term memory
   
  below ~1 dB loudness difference becomes hard to recognize as actual loudness difference - yet does show clearly in DBT/ABX - down to 0.1-0.2 dB  (1-2% drive V difference - you really have to measure) - with many reporting subtle frequency response differences, often the louder instance is rated "sounds better"
   
  without Blinding protocols conscious sense impressions can be unconsciously influenced by everything from equipment appearance, knob/switch/connector "feel", "knowing" tube vs SS sound expectation, basically anything the brain knows about the test, equipment, remembers from reviews, peer comments, facial expressions get rolled into the conscious perception


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





gnarlsagan said:


> I've been wondering lately if there's any attribute of an amp that would make it more "resolving" than another amp. I've especially been looking at differences between op-amps. "More resolving" and "micro-details" are terms used often. Do these terms have any merit?


 
  Obvious differences would be:
  - op-amps without current limit: degrading performance with "current-limiting" resistors inside the feedback loop (see mini3)
  - picky op-amps: adding resistors at the output (outside the loop, increasing output impedance) because proper compensation was too hard for the designer 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  - swapping: some circuits are carefully designed for a certain op-amp, but that doesn't stop people from swapping them for more expensive "upgrades" - can lead to instability or degraded performance
  - output current: using an op-amp with low output current capabilities to drive low impedance headphones
  - generally bad implementation (doesn't depend on a certain op-amp but may lead some people to believe that it's a particular op-amp's fault, or even that all solid-state stuff is bad)
  ...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Anyone interested in the Sleeper4Android project?
  http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=43809838#post43809838
   
  It's a fun experiment playing the ultimate showdown in cheap-fi vs hi-fi


----------



## gnarlsagan

xnor said:


> Obvious differences would be:
> - op-amps without current limit: degrading performance with "current-limiting" resistors inside the feedback loop (see mini3)
> - picky op-amps: adding resistors at the output (outside the loop, increasing output impedance) because proper compensation was too hard for the designer :veryevil:
> - swapping: some circuits are carefully designed for a certain op-amp, but that doesn't stop people from swapping them for more expensive "upgrades" - can lead to instability or degraded performance
> ...




Awesome thanks that's the info I was looking for. I'll probably be buying a couple different op-amps to try out and wanted to know if it'd be worth the money.


----------



## krismusic

There is a thread in this forum about it. Scroll down to "Worlds quietest room".


----------



## krismusic

There is a thread in this forum about it. Scroll down to "Worlds quietest room". It is not intended as a torture device. It's a research tool.


----------



## miceblue

Quote: 





krismusic said:


> There is a thread in this forum about it. Scroll down to "Worlds quietest room". It is not intended as a torture device. It's a research tool.


 
  Oh pshaw, I totally didn't even see that thread. XD

 I know it's not a torture chamber, but as it was mentioned in the audio podcast, people often become quite disoriented upon entering the "torture" room and ask to leave.
   
  Also from that thread:
   
  Quote: 





> When your room is so quiet your heatbeat is the noisefloor, _thats_ when you've given it enough treatment.


 
   
  That's pretty dang scary....I don't want to be in that room isolated from the rest of the world.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Orfield Labs uses the room to test products, including switches that go on car dashboards and the sound an LED display makes on a cell phone to make sure they're not too loud.


 
  I didn't even know that existed. :-0


----------



## jcx

Quote: 





gnarlsagan said:


> Awesome thanks that's the info I was looking for. I'll probably be buying a couple different op-amps to try out and wanted to know if it'd be worth the money.


 
  this really isn't the best forum for getting "validation" of your preconceived, set course - if you really read the replies


----------



## gnarlsagan

jcx said:


> this really isn't the best forum for getting "validation" of your preconceived, set course - if you really read the replies




I remain ever skeptical of differences. I just knew nothing about op-amps and wanted to know if there's even the possibility of sound differences between them. I'll be buying the 4267 for the uha-6s mkii. It's cheap so I don't mind if it turns out it sounds the same. I actually consider that to be the most likely scenario.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





gnarlsagan said:


> I remain ever skeptical of differences. I just knew nothing about op-amps and wanted to know if there's even the possibility of sound differences between them. I'll be buying the 4267 for the uha-6s mkii. It's cheap so I don't mind if it turns out it sounds the same. I actually consider that to be the most likely scenario.


 
   
  There is a big (300+ pages) pdf out there on "opamp distortion" http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/chip-amps/139025-op-amp-distortion-measurement.html
   
  There is certainly the possibility of _significant_ measured performance differences between opamps - to what extent these differences are humanly audible when properly implemented in a given context is a separate question requiring rigorous empirical testing


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> There is a big (300+ pages) pdf out there on "opamp distortion" http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/chip-amps/139025-op-amp-distortion-measurement.html
> 
> There is certainly the possibility of _significant_ measured performance differences between opamps - to what extent these differences are humanly audible when properly implemented in a given context is a separate question requiring rigorous empirical testing


 
   
  Wow that's a great resource thanks. Nice to see the famous OPA627 on there. Unfortunately the ADA4627 I just bought isn't listed. I need a second uha-6s to do some rigorous empirical testing!


----------



## mikeaj

Just tangentially related, but some slides on op amps and other parts for high-end audio performance design (no implications regarding audibility, especially considering the context):
http://www.bonisaudio.com/thd/img47.html
   
  from Bruce Hofer of Audio Precision.


----------



## bigshot

For the life of me, I don't know why folks with no interest in science and a chip on their shoulder keep marching into this forum and insisting that we respect their ability to throw money at phantom sound quality. There must be some sort of desire for us to accept their points as valid, but they don't make any effort to make valid points. I don't get it. There's a million other forums on headfi that they can get all the validation they want. Why do they keep gravitating to this one?


----------



## miceblue

I still don't understand power requirements for headphones. I was trying to see if an Objective 2 would be enough for the upcoming Alpha Dog and everyone is like "oooh you need lots of power for them since they're orthodynamic; you need at least 1 W for it to sound good; sure you might not use the whole 1 W, but I've found that more power makes it really sound better."
   
  -.-


----------



## xnor

Me neither. Since it's based on a T50RP which produces about 107 dBSPL @ 1V and 54 ohms you don't need much power. Some ~30 ohm dynamic headphones need more current, others need more voltage, but nobody recommends 1000 mW amps for them, so that's not it.
   
  My guess is that there's a new group of people that fear if barely touching the volume control doesn't pop your eardrums your amp is not up to the task. Ask them why they don't use power amps for their headphones.


----------



## gnarlsagan

Yeah my ER4S only shows its true potential with one of these. I only need to turn the volume knob one nanometer.


----------



## miceblue

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/ultimate-headphone-guide-articles-what-headphone-amplifier-and-why-do-i-need-one
  Quote: 





> Many non-portable, high end home headphones are less efficient, though, and some, like the currently popular planar magnetic headphones, are really not at all efficient, and require more than a few watts of power to generate the same output level that an high-efficiency IEM can generate from one milliwatt. Headphones with sensitivity specs in the 95dB or less range (as a very loose guide) are more likely to require a headphone amp.


 
  Um, what?


----------



## xnor

It's true, but only if you take exceptions like the HE-4/6 and compare it to highly efficient IEMs.
   
  Most other planar magnetic headphones are *at least* 10 dB more sensitive and then you're down to a small fraction of a watt again.


----------



## bigshot

I had someone PM me asking about my system. I replied, outlining all the work I've done to make it sound great. He was disappointed that I told him about the development work I did instead of just listing expensive equipment. Oh well!


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





xnor said:


> It's true, but only if you take exceptions like the HE-4/6 and compare it to highly efficient IEMs.
> 
> Most other planar magnetic headphones are *at least* 10 dB more sensitive and then you're down to a small fraction of a watt again.


 
   
  Indeed. From IF's measurements:
   
  Shure SE535 — 0.012 V (rms) or 0.0041 mW for 90 dB SPL
  HiFiMAN HE-6 — 1.018 V (rms) or 19.59 mW for 90 dB SPL
   
  That's about 4750 times more power needed. Now, the key is that you'd never use 1 mW (except in an extreme peak) with something as sensitive as SE535 because that'd be 114 dB SPL. But for equivalent volume out of HE-6, yes, you do need "several watts".
   
   
   


bigshot said:


> I had someone PM me asking about my system. I replied, outlining all the work I've done to make it sound great. He was disappointed that I told him about the development work I did instead of just listing expensive equipment. Oh well!


   


  But, but, but...!


----------



## xnor

Guess some people just want to buy some expensive components (since those have to be good, right?), connect them (probably again with expensive cables for the same reason), thinking it will result in a high quality system. Especially with speakers in a room it's not that simple.
  Same could be argued for headphones btw, since everyone has a differently shaped head, pinna, ear canal ...


----------



## DairyProduce

BTW what is your system like bigshot? I'm kinda curious about the amount of work that is needed to create a good speaker set up


----------



## Joe Bloggs

http://db.tt/fl18Wbj0

I went to the LISTEN HRIR database, downloaded the data for all 51 subjects, extracted the HRIR for front projection (zero elevation and azimuth), and separated the HRIR for left and right ears (which could be quite different resulting in channel imbalance). The result is 102 different HRIRs potentially creating frontal imaging for headphones. Load these with a convolver plugin for your player and listen for the best HRIR for you


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Does anyone know if the PRIRs for the Smyth Realiser can be downloaded and used as impulse responses for a generic convolver, or whether they are encrypted or copyrighted?


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





dairyproduce said:


> BTW what is your system like bigshot? I'm kinda curious about the amount of work that is needed to create a good speaker set up


 
   
  All of my money went into the speakers- top of the line Sunfire sub, custom built 12 inch 5 way studio monitors, JBL towers and Klipsch center and rears. I use a regular old Yamaha receiver and a $120 Sony bluray player, along with a Mac Mini connected to a 40 TB RAID.
   
  The work was in arranging the room, because I couldn't hang any acoustic panels, and equalization. It took about six months of tweaking the EQ to arrive at a pleasantly neutral setting, My system doubles as the sound for my hidef video projection. It has a ten foot screen, so I needed a very wide soundstage with no dropouts in the middle. Just balancing the volume levels of the front channels took forever to get right.
   
  At this point, the sound is absolutely perfect from a whisper to a roar. I can turn the volume up without any congestion. In fact, the walls of the room rattle long before the speakers will! Yamaha's DSPs, particularly the 7:1 Stereo DSP do a tremendous job of widening and focusing the soundstage. I can flip from direct out of the amp with no correction to full EQ and DSP. It's really like night and day.
   
  I'll do a longer post with pictures sometime if anyone is interested. Anyone in LA is welcome to come check it out.


----------



## DairyProduce

I'm interested in seeing your setup! Though I'm not sure this is the best thread to post it?


----------



## bigshot

It's a bit of work to photograph it all. I'll see if I can do it one of the upcoming weekends and I'll start a new thread.


----------



## krismusic

Please put a link in here.


----------



## DairyProduce

Looking forward to seeing it!
   
  BTW, do you still use headphones for a different kind of presentation to speakers?


----------



## bigshot

I do transfers and restoration of LPs and 78s. When I do that, I use headphones because they accentuate noise. But once you've got a dedicated listening room and good speakers (and no one to complain about the volume!) there's no reason to listen to cans.


----------



## DairyProduce

Which cans do you use for the transfer/restoration work?


----------



## bigshot

Sennheiser HD590. The response is pretty flat, so I can make rough EQ adjustments. They have to be fine tuned on speakers though.


----------



## DairyProduce

Thanks for answering my questions! look forward to seeing your setup


----------



## gnarlsagan

dairyproduce said:


> Thanks for answering my questions! look forward to seeing your setup




Also looking forward to bigshot's setup. I've been reading about for a while now!


----------



## bigshot

Boy, that Can someone explain resolution thread sure has become derailed. I can't believe people are spending so much time on the idea that upsampling redbook improves its fidelity.


----------



## miceblue

I need 32-bit 384 kHz music or else it sounds terrible. XD


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Boy, that Can someone explain resolution thread sure has become derailed. I can't believe people are spending so much time on the idea that upsampling redbook improves its fidelity.


 
   
  That's one of the dumber things I have heard here lately......lol.


----------



## jcx

compared to a NOS DAC? - not that any in that subculture actually implement a analog reconstruction filter of sufficient order to remove image frequencies
   
  so most all NOS DAC fans are listening to both "CD Audio" content and the effects of high level ultrasonic inverted image folding down from 44100 interacting with system nonlinearities likely producing audible frequency IMD
   
  if thats the non-oversampling baseline then I sure do want OS either in the DAC chip or SW


----------



## Don Hills

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Boy, that Can someone explain resolution thread sure has become derailed. I can't believe people are spending so much time on the idea that upsampling redbook improves its fidelity.


 

 In theory, it doesn't. In practice, it can.
  [RANT]
  I'm getting tired of the hundreds of threads where people constantly fine-tune software players and swap USB cables in search of better sound. All it's doing is giving boutique audiophile DAC manufacturers the excuse to continue producing poorly performing but high priced DACs. The blame needs to be placed firmly where it belongs and their feet held to the fire until they produce DACs that fulfil the digital promise. It's not impossible, some manufacturers have been doing it for a long time.
  [/RANT]


----------



## bigshot

Or just get a mac mini and an iPod and not worry about DACs at all.


----------



## Cat Face

I'm not brand-agnostic enough to use Apple yet, something about the stigma associated with their average user etc..
   
  Also greetings from a new member, lovely to see so much civilized and informed discussion about audio.


----------



## krismusic

That is a really silly statement if you don't mind me saying. Read it again and look at all the different layers of wrong.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





cat face said:


> I'm not brand-agnostic enough to use Apple yet, something about the stigma associated with their average user etc..
> 
> Also greetings from a new member, lovely to see so much civilized and informed discussion about audio.


 
  Meh.  LIke any of us here are average.


----------



## UltMusicSnob

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Boy, that Can someone explain resolution thread sure has become derailed. I can't believe people are spending so much time on the idea that upsampling redbook improves its fidelity.


 

 For most listeners, I'm sure upsampling does not affect their subjective experience of quality, depending on what they listen to, how they listen, what equipment they have, what shape their ears are in, the program content of their collections, their specific tastes in different dimensions of quality, how they upsample, their past experiences of close listening, and whether they pay more attention to other music system and room features which have more effect on the final outcome (nearly all of them, in other words).


----------



## bigshot

That's a whole lot of words just to say something that is plainly obvious.


----------



## MatsGyver

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Is it just me or do people come in here lately all ready to create a fight? A question is asked, it's answered straightforwardly and all of a sudden it's as if their mother has been insulted. I honestly find it to be pretty baffling.


 
  Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> What'd you say about my mother?
> 
> se


 
  This allmost made me spill my coffee all over the keyboard. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Its funny because its true.


----------



## jaddie

Yo' mama wears earbuds!


----------



## Steve Eddy

matsgyver said:


> This allmost made me spill my coffee all over the keyboard.




Almost? I must be losing my touch in my old age. I'll try harder next time.

se


----------



## miceblue

This was somewhat amusing to me:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate
  Quote: 





> Because of the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, sampling rates higher than about 50 kHz to 60 kHz cannot supply more usable information for human listeners. Early professional audio equipment manufacturers chose sampling rates in the region of 50 kHz for this reason. 88.2 kHz and 96 kHz are often used in modern professional audio equipment, along with 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz. Higher rates such as 192 kHz are prone to ultrasonic artifacts causing audible intermodulation distortion, and inaccurate sampling caused by too much speed. The Audio Engineering Society recommends 48 kHz sample rate for most applications but gives recognition to 44.1 kHz for Compact Disc and other consumer uses, 32 kHz for transmission-related application and 96 kHz for higher bandwidth or relaxed anti-aliasing filtering.


 
  ...
  Quote: 





> 48,000 Hz - The standard audio sampling rate used by professional digital video equipment such as tape recorders, video servers, vision mixers and so on. This rate was chosen because it could deliver a 22 kHz frequency response and work with 29.97 frames per second NTSC video - as well as 25 frame/s, 30 frame/s and 24 frame/s systems. With 29.97 frame/s systems it is necessary to handle 1601.6 audio samples per frame delivering an integer number of audio samples only every fifth video frame. Also used for sound with consumer video formats like DV, digital TV, DVD, and films. The professional Serial Digital Interface (SDI) and High-definition Serial Digital Interface (HD-SDI) used to connect broadcast television equipment together uses this audio sampling frequency. Most professional audio gear uses 48 kHz sampling, including mixing consoles, and digital recording devices.


 
  So why do people insist on obtaining 24/96 or 24/192 versions of things then if the higher sampling rates are essentially useless for us humans? Why not have 24/48 instead?


----------



## xnor

Because sometimes 24/96 versions aren't mastered as gruesomely as CDs so they can be sold for higher prices everytime. It's a goldmine. The format itself doesn't really matter.
   
  High-res downloads should be boycotted until the industry dials back the destructive mixing/mastering.


----------



## miceblue

Woah, have you guys watched this before?


----------



## uchihaitachi

miceblue said:


> Woah, have you guys watched this before?




yup thats how I found out about all of Mr Winer's writings.


----------



## gnarlsagan

I have a question about harmonics. I know a kick drum with fundamentals at ~60Hz will have harmonics higher up, but will it also have harmonics further down? Say at 30Hz or 40Hz?


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





gnarlsagan said:


> I have a question about harmonics. I know a kick drum with fundamentals at ~60Hz will have harmonics higher up, but will it also have harmonics further down? Say at 30Hz or 40Hz?


 
   
  AFAIK, if 60Hz is the fundamental, then the harmonics will be in integer multiples of the fundamental.


----------



## UltMusicSnob

Quote: 





gnarlsagan said:


> I have a question about harmonics. I know a kick drum with fundamentals at ~60Hz will have harmonics higher up, but will it also have harmonics further down? Say at 30Hz or 40Hz?


 

 There is at least one playing technique for subharmonics: http://www.marikimura.com/subharmonics.html  Mostly they are little-used by composers; George Crumb has included them.
  Can be heard ~43 secs + here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPTt5u681so  This artist is also playing occasional upper harmonics.


----------



## Jiffy Squid

Quote: 





miceblue said:


> Woah, have you guys watched this before?
> 
> [Video]


 
   
  That was fascinating! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## krismusic

It is a shame that that video is isolated in our ghetto here on Headfi. It should be on the front page of the site.
  A tale. Bear with me I think it is relevant.
  I had a combi boiler fitted a couple of years ago and it has always exasperated me how long it takes to heat the water. Leaving me chucking liters of water down the sink. In contrast to the tank based system it replaced.
  A few days ago a friend who is a plumber came and had a look. The only problem he found was that the gas pressure was 1 millibar lower than the manufacturer recommends.
  He adjusted it and left.
  I was very pleased to find that the hot water delivery had improved. When I next saw the plumber I thanked him and told him that what he had done had improved things.
  He said that he was very surprised and doubtful that what he had done could make a difference. ( He hadn't charged me for the visit BTW.) He even asked if I knew of the placebo phenomena!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  I have realised that nothing has changed. I just became a little more patient and forgiving of my hot water system.
  A friend of mine says that as he gets older he realises that everything he thinks he knows turns out to be an urban myth.
  I am beginning to think that every decision I ever made about anything is placebo! I am even starting to look at my wife of 30yrs.a little dubiously!!


----------



## uchihaitachi

krismusic said:


> It is a shame that that video is isolated in our ghetto here on Headfi. It should be on the front page of the site.
> A tale. Bear with me I think it is relevant.
> I had a combi boiler fitted a couple of years ago and it has always exasperated me how long it takes to heat the water. Leaving me chucking liters of water down the sink. In contrast to the tank based system it replaced.
> A few days ago a friend who is a plumber came and had a look. The only problem he found was that the gas pressure was 1 millibar lower than the manufacturer recommends.
> ...




Our ghetto is the sole beacon of truth on this entire website. The rest I read for comic relief. I read this today:

Copper tends to increase bass. Warms up the sound more so I'd picture that being a bad pairing on the 8A. Pure silver cable on the other hand tends to lean out bass somewhat so it may help. But it also tends to take the mids back a little. That depends on your preference though. I also find it to enhance treble and make it brighter.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> Our ghetto is the sole beacon of truth on this entire website.


 
   
  This particular thread, Skeptico is becoming the last vestige of the sole beacon.


----------



## Baxide

Quote:


> Copper tends to increase bass. Warms up the sound more so I'd picture that being a bad pairing on the 8A. Pure silver cable on the other hand tends to lean out bass somewhat so it may help. But it also tends to take the mids back a little. That depends on your preference though. I also find it to enhance treble and make it brighter.


 
  According to the periodic table gold is the best material for interconnects. It's high density offers a better transmission medium. That's partly do to the larger number of electrons and photons.


----------



## Cat Face

Quote: 





baxide said:


> According to the periodic table gold is the best material for interconnects. It's high density offers a better transmission medium. That's partly do to the larger number of electrons and photons.


 
  None of that matters when you take into account the cross-scientific approach and realize we're dealing with so large signals the miniscule differences become insignificant and most likely fall within the error margin of the devices being tested. And THEN you take into account you're supposed to be thinking about these things from the perspective of the ear and human perception. From that perspective, the differences become literally nonexistent, even if they did exists in the measurable domain as some AES paper suggested (wooah, insignificant changes in isolation, inductance and capacitance on long runs of cables, who would have thought).


----------



## krismusic

Since coming to this thread I have found reading the rest of the site slightly surreal. 
Especially "Puctures of Your Portable Rig" which I am subscribed to. 
The number of "stacks" with fantastically elaborate interconnects. 
I have to resist the temptation to comment as it would obviously result in flame wars. 
I just want to post "but, but, but...." 
I don't have a very technical mind. Most of my opinions are based on feel and emotion. Not ideal I would be the first to agree but there it is. 
But. Am I right in thinking that a lot of this cable malarkey. Affecting the character of the sound etc, is based on a complete lack of understanding of how electricity works?


----------



## Cat Face

The best part is when some "high-end" cable manufacturers offer RCA cables that have to be connected in the right direction. Think about it for a second..


Spoiler: Plot%20twist%3A



Sound is alternating current


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





krismusic said:


> Since coming to this thread I have found reading the rest of the site slightly surreal.
> Especially "Puctures of Your Portable Rig" which I am subscribed to.
> The number of "stacks" with fantastically elaborate interconnects.
> I have to resist the temptation to comment as it would obviously result in flame wars.
> ...


 
  Frankly speaking based on complete idiocy and a dogmatic belief that higher the price THERE MUST BE A GARGANTUAN IMPROVEMENT.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





uchihaitachi said:


> Frankly speaking based on complete idiocy and a dogmatic belief that higher the price THERE MUST BE A GARGANTUAN IMPROVEMENT.


 
  Well, gargantuan, +/- 3dB.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Well, gargantuan, +/- 3dB.


 
  Along with crystal clear highs, lush soul embracing mids and enhanced PRAT???!?!!


----------



## Steve Eddy

cat face said:


> The best part is when some "high-end" cable manufacturers offer RCA cables that have to be connected in the right direction. Think about it for a second...




Well, there are some directional cables. Cables that use what's called a telescoping shield, such as a twisted pair with an overall shield that's tied to ground at only one end. The shield is intended to be tied to the source end, which gave rise many years ago to cables with arrows on them to indicate which end was supposed to be the load end.

I believe it wa this which led some people to believe there was some directional peproperty to the wires themselves.

se


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





cat face said:


> The best part is when some "high-end" cable manufacturers offer RCA cables that have to be connected in the right direction. Think about it for a second..
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Plot%20twist%3A
> ...


 
   
  Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Well, there are some directional cables. Cables that use what's called a telescoping shield, such as a twisted pair with an overall shield that's tied to ground at only one end. The shield is intended to be tied to the source end, which gave rise many years ago to cables with arrows on them to indicate which end was supposed to be the load end.
> 
> I believe it wa this which led some people to believe there was some directional peproperty to the wires themselves.
> 
> se


 
   
   
  From   http://www.head-fi.org/t/405217/my-cable-test-enterprise
   
[size=16.799999237060547px] Can Audio cables be directional ?[/size] Two of the cables I purchased are supposed to be directional. I recorded samples using the Audioquest G-Snake and Audioquest Sidewinder both correctly aligned and incorrectly aligned. I recorded 10 samples with each of the 4 combinations.

The G-Snake correctly aligned was in fact measurably different from the G-Snake incorrectly aligned. When I fed the results into SPSS the result was significant.

Before anyone gets excited the maximum difference at any frequency was 0.022db and the average difference was 0.001db. For the Sidewinder the maximum difference was 0.011db and the average difference at all frequencies was 0.002db.


----------



## Cat Face

if you want your cable to be directional just put a full-wave rectifier in it, don't expect it to sound good though 
   
  How is two hundredths of a decibel significant?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





cat face said:


> if you want your cable to be directional just put a full-wave rectifier in it, don't expect it to sound good though
> 
> How is two hundredths of a decibel significant?


 
   
  Statistically significant rather than important. I should stress that my rather crude measurement setup was only accurate to roughly about  15 or 16 bits. But as I mentioned any "night and day"  or even subtle but discernible difference between analog cables that cannot survive a 15/16 bit A/D stage is most likely scotch mist, or not worth worrying about for 99.9999% of the music listening populace


----------



## miceblue

krismusic said:


> Since coming to this thread I have found reading the rest of the site slightly surreal.
> Especially "Puctures of Your Portable Rig" which I am subscribed to.
> The number of "stacks" with fantastically elaborate interconnects.
> I have to resist the temptation to comment as it would obviously result in flame wars.
> ...




Yeah sometimes I make snarky remarks In that thread. XD


Does anyone know if measurements have been made on a Retina MacBook Pro's soundcard? Music played through that actually sounds better to me than through my iPhone 4S and C5 amp through a line out dock. Yes I know that's a subjective observation, but I have no other means of comparing them.


----------



## krismusic

uchihaitachi said:


> Along with crystal clear highs, lush soul embracing mids and enhanced PRAT???!?!!



The first time I read a reference to PRaT I thought someone was joking. Surely audio fools could have come up with a less revealing acronym???!


----------



## bigshot

How about creating headphones with Space Holographic Imaging Technology?


----------



## Don Hills

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> How about creating headphones with Space Holographic Imaging Technology?


 

 Actually, that's "Stereo Holographic Imaging Technology". Which I will now proceed to register as a trademark...


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





don hills said:


> Actually, that's "Stereo Holographic Imaging Technology". Which I will now proceed to register as a trademark...


 
  Won't you have to fight it out with Bob Carver?


----------



## Cat Face

Stereo Holographic Imaging Technology:

 "We've created a 6-channel stereo format with multi-microphone recording format, where six microphones are saved into three separate channels per side with a (fully discrete triple grounded) crossover circuitry. One microphone records only the bass frequencies, one records the mid-range and one records the high-frequency content. This way the waveform of strong slamming bass won't obscure microdetail and ~musicality~ in the high and mid-frequency domain and you can forget about masking effect* being in the way of you and most genuine music listening ever! We've also recorded at the native sample rate of 348KHz/32-bit to ensure eight times more accurate stereo imaging and PRaT. You will need our licensed special software (support for Windows XP only), drivers and six DAC units to replay music like it's meant to be played"

 *I hope everyone knows that's not what or how masking effect actually works.


----------



## xnor

Well... /facepalm.


----------



## Don Hills

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Won't you have to fight it out with Bob Carver?


 

 Nope. His is *Sonic* holography.


----------



## jaddie

don hills said:


> Nope. His is *Sonic* holography.



I know, but its also Bob, he'll sue you anyway.


----------



## miceblue

Huh, that's kind of interesting.
 http://phys.org/news/2013-08-layer-tiny-grains.html


----------



## uchihaitachi

Out of curiosity, has AES or any other individual performed properly set up DBTs on lossless vs 320 kbps mp3 differentiation? If so, what were the results like? Were there individuals who were actually consistently differentiating between the two or...?


----------



## jaddie

uchihaitachi said:


> Out of curiosity, has AES or any other individual performed properly set up DBTs on lossless vs 320 kbps mp3 differentiation? If so, what were the results like? Were there individuals who were actually consistently differentiating between the two or...?




The AES is not a research organization, it's a professions organization the publishes and organizes conventions to disseminate information. Individuals and other organizations conduct research and publish papers through AES. 

The Lossless vs mp3 question is not as simple as comparing the two, as there are many different variations of each, and some program material is more reveialing than others for certain settings. There are only general answers to be had. In these days of comparatively limitless storage, low rate mp3 seems unnecessary.


----------



## uchihaitachi

jaddie said:


> The AES is not a research organization, it's a professions organization the publishes and organizes conventions to disseminate information. Individuals and other organizations conduct research and publish papers through AES.
> 
> The Lossless vs mp3 question is not as simple as comparing the two, as there are many different variations of each, and some program material is more reveialing than others for certain settings. There are only general answers to be had. In these days of comparatively limitless storage, low rate mp3 seems unnecessary.


 
 Sorry for being unclear, I meant if there were papers published by AES. I was thinking of FLAC vs 320kbps mp3.


----------



## UltMusicSnob

uchihaitachi said:


> Sorry for being unclear, I meant if there were papers published by AES. I was thinking of FLAC vs 320kbps mp3.


 
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15074
 Mp3 compression is commonly used to reduce the size of digital music files but introduces a number of potentially audible artifacts, especially at low bitrates. We investigated whether listeners prefer CD quality to mp3 files at various bitrates (96 kb/s to 320 kb/s), and whether this preference is affected by musical genre. Thirteen trained listeners completed an A/B comparison task judging CD quality and compressed files. Listeners significantly preferred CD quality to mp3 files up to 192 kb/s for all musical genres. In addition, we observed a significant effect of expertise (sound engineers vs. musicians) and musical genres (electric v.s acoustic music).
  
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16108
 A group of 18 high school students with no prior listening experience participated in two separate controlled listening tests that measured their preferences between music reproduced in 1) MP3 and lossless CD-quality file formats, and 2) music reproduced through four different consumer loudspeakers. Overall, the teenagers preferred the sound quality of the CD-quality music reproduction, and the most accurate, neutral loudspeaker. Together, these tests provide some new evidence that teenagers can discern and appreciate a better quality of reproduced sound when given the opportunity to directly compare it against lower quality options.


----------



## swspiers

joe bloggs said:


> Does anyone have the link to the study where they EQed different headphones to sound like each other and asked listeners to grade their sound quality? The result being that when frequency responses were made similar sound quality became similar as well?


 
  
 Holy crap!  I know this is an old post, but I was just developing this hypothesis after wondering why in the heck I'm chasing higher end cans when I can probably EQ to the point they sound very similar.
  
 I may have found the right thread...


----------



## xnor

All you need is a head- or in-ear-phone that has low enough distortion and well extended frequency response on both ends. (Distortion is usually a problem at the low end so I'd prefer a headphone with boosted instead of recessed bass as starting point.)
 Oh, and some headphones have nasty treble spikes which are hard to tame (but also hard to exactly replicate!) with a parametric EQ.
  
 From there you can go pretty much anywhere with an EQ sound signature wise.


----------



## swspiers

xnor said:


> All you need is a head- or in-ear-phone that has low enough distortion and well extended frequency response on both ends. (Distortion is usually a problem at the low end so I'd prefer a headphone with boosted instead of recessed bass as starting point.)
> Oh, and some headphones have nasty treble spikes which are hard to tame (but also hard to exactly replicate!) with a parametric EQ.
> 
> From there you can go pretty much anywhere with an EQ sound signature wise.


 
  
 Thanks!
 I have a decent amount of experience with EQ from a pro-audio perspective, mostly with my bass amps.  I am familiar with basic concepts.  I am also a Psychology major, with an emphasis on cognition and perception.
  
 The three headphones I will be working with are the Hifiman HE-5LE, Grado SR-225i, and the soon-to-be-arriving Alpha Dog from Mr. Speakers.  My favorite so far are the Grado's, which have a tactile quality that the 5LE is missing.
  
 I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the thread and catching up!


----------



## xnor

Looking purely at the performance the Grado will probably be the last choice. It has the rolled-off bass due to lack of seal I mentioned before, gradually increasing distortion in the low end (reaching 10% at 100 dB SPL at ~60 Hz), and the treble peaks.
  
 It might be tamable with quite a bit of equalization, but I don't think you can make it sound like the HE-5LE for example.


----------



## swspiers

xnor said:


> Looking purely at the performance the Grado will probably be the last choice. It has the rolled-off bass due to lack of seal I mentioned before, gradually increasing distortion in the low end (reaching 10% at 100 dB SPL at ~60 Hz), and the treble peaks.
> 
> It might be tamable with quite a bit of equalization, but I don't think you can make it sound like the HE-5LE for example.


 
  
 Ahh, that is most definitely true.  However, I am operating on an assumption regarding the Grado, that due to the 'colored' response I think it is likely that they are not intended to produce 100 dB.  I almost never listen at that volume, and prefer to be substantially below that, at approx. 85 dB.  At the lower volume level, the Grado's perform rather nicely.


----------



## miceblue

Interesting

  
 Now I need to look into that WaveLab 8 software...


----------



## uchihaitachi

I know this is already a very well established phenomenon but bear with me while I have a quick rant. I was reading up on couple of threads and there is an unwavering overriding consensus that a higher price MUST yield better SQ. But... x is times 5 the price of y there is NO way y is better than x and so on. My question is this. Considering most people on head fi are working adults or students with education just how on earth do 99 percent of the individuals on this forum use such rationale with fervent dogma. It is simply beyond me.


----------



## MatsGyver

xnor said:


> All you need is a head- or in-ear-phone that has low enough distortion and well extended frequency response on both ends. (Distortion is usually a problem at the low end so I'd prefer a headphone with boosted instead of recessed bass as starting point.)
> Oh, and some headphones have nasty treble spikes which are hard to tame (but also hard to exactly replicate!) with a parametric EQ.
> 
> From there you can go pretty much anywhere with an EQ sound signature wise.




Are you sure about this? EQ can increase or reduce the digital signal on the parametric band, but it cannot change the physical damping of the headphones. And the level of physical damping varies from headphone model to headphone model.

Its like tapping a car with and without shockobsorbers. You cant make them wobble identical with applying different pressure. The headphones with lesser damping will wobble longer and more uncontrolled, you cannot change that with EQ.


----------



## stv014

matsgyver said:


> Are you sure about this? EQ can increase or reduce the digital signal on the parametric band, but it cannot change the physical damping of the headphones. And the level of physical damping varies from headphone model to headphone model.


 
  
 However, the effects of damping can be measured on the impulse response (and everything else that is derived from the impulse response, like frequency response, CSD, square wave response, etc.), as long as the headphone is considered to be close enough to a linear time invariant system (FR variations due to changes in placement/seal are a problem in particular, as they effectively make the headphone not time invariant). That is, the lack of damping mainly shows up as errors (peaks) in the frequency response, which can be corrected.
  


matsgyver said:


> Its like tapping a car with and without shockobsorbers. You cant make them wobble identical with applying different pressure.


 
  
 It is actually possible by applying the different pressure in the right way that counteracts the resonance. However, in practice, it is a problem if too much pressure would need to be applied.


----------



## stv014

As an example, here is a filter (FR and IR shown, click to zoom) with a 6 dB resonance (Q=2) at 100 Hz, and a 12 dB/octave roll-off below that. This could be a simple model of a speaker with a primary resonance frequency of 100 Hz, a mass-spring resonance can be simulated with a second order IIR filter.
  
    
  
 Not too surprisingly, the 30 Hz square wave response of this looks quite bad:
  

  
 Now, since the filter is minimum phase, it can actually easily be inverted, except for the roll-off towards infinite attenuation at 0 Hz. So, here is the inverse filter (the EQ), with the low frequency emphasis clamped at slightly less than 24 dB (check the third link in my signature for the utility that was used to generate the inverse filter):
  
    
  
 With the correction filter applied, the frequency response is flattened out, save for some minor roll-off at the bottom end, and the resonance in the impulse response is eliminated as well:
  
    
  
 Finally, the square wave response with the correction EQ. There is no resonance now, only the effect of the roll-off is visible:


----------



## swspiers

uchihaitachi said:


> I know this is already a very well established phenomenon but bear with me while I have a quick rant. I was reading up on couple of threads and there is an unwavering overriding consensus that a higher price MUST yield better SQ. But... x is times 5 the price of y there is NO way y is better than x and so on. My question is this. Considering most people on head fi are working adults or students with education just how on earth do 99 percent of the individuals on this forum use such rationale with fervent dogma. It is simply beyond me.


 
  
 Maddening, isn't it?  I think that 99 percent of the people on this forum really don't care if they are being rational or not.  Audio in general and headphones in particular are an escape from work and/or school, and there seems to be a conscious choice to leave logic behind for a while and explore the mysterious, mystical world of headphones.
  
 I myself am a reformed subjectivist, and have found that my experience is actually enhanced when I pay attention to fundamentals, and avoid the syllogisms I usually encounter of forums like this. The irrational is not particular to Head-fi- it is found in all of the forums I participate in.  In fact, the human mind itself is amazingly irrational, which is a source for much frustration if one favors a rational point of view.


----------



## MatsGyver

stv014 said:


> As an example, here is a filter (FR and IR shown, click to zoom) with a 6 dB resonance (Q=2) at 100 Hz, and a 12 dB/octave roll-off below that. This could be a simple model of a speaker with a primary resonance frequency of 100 Hz, a mass-spring resonance can be simulated with a second order IIR filter. [.....]




This was very interesting. I did not think that was possible.


----------



## xnor

matsgyver said:


> Are you sure about this? EQ can increase or reduce the digital signal on the parametric band, but it cannot change the physical damping of the headphones. And the level of physical damping varies from headphone model to headphone model.
> 
> Its like tapping a car with and without shockobsorbers. You cant make them wobble identical with applying different pressure. The headphones with lesser damping will wobble longer and more uncontrolled, you cannot change that with EQ.


 
 To put it bluntly, minimum phase equalization works by adding ringing to the impulse response. Depending on how linear the headphone is, the ringing will cancel more or less.
  
 With a high damping factor it is pretty much impossible for a headphone driver to ring for a long time. The ringing you see in CSDs, imo, is either a nasty peak in the frequency response, or a resonance of the ear and the headphones' earcup. The former can be equalized if you have to, but you're probably better off with a headphone that has no such nasty peaks, the latter seems to have very little to do with the driver itself. An exaggerated comparison would be trying to equalize reverb away in an untreated large room. (Exaggerated because we're talking multiple seconds of reverb here while resonances are usually a few thousandth of a second.)
 If you do not want to mod the headphone you can still equalize the problematic range by taking away energy. That way the resonant frequencies will be excited a lot less. This is not so bad because dips in the FR are a lot less noticeable than equivalent peaks.


----------



## roadcykler

xnor said:


> Oh hai there, thanks for re-opening the saloon.


 
  
 Late to the party but I'll second that. This time I subscribed so I can keep up.


----------



## miceblue

Holycrap I am trying so hard to not laugh out loud at work right now. XD


----------



## roadcykler

bigshot said:


> For the life of me, I don't know why folks with no interest in science and a chip on their shoulder keep marching into this forum and insisting that we respect their ability to throw money at phantom sound quality. There must be some sort of desire for us to accept their points as valid, but they don't make any effort to make valid points. I don't get it. There's a million other forums on headfi that they can get all the validation they want. Why do they keep gravitating to this one?


 
  
 For the same reason some people get married to someone who has problems, "I can change him". They think they can change us.


----------



## cbdhouses

thank you,I didn't quite get whether this last bit was a significant difference though.


----------



## proton007

roadcykler said:


> For the same reason some people get married to someone who has problems, "I can change him". They think they can change us.


 
  
 It may be as you say, but I can also think of another reason. Validation.
  
 Post purchase dissonance is usually remedied by validation. Telling others you've bought something and hearing positive things about your purchase relieves the symptoms.
  
 However, this is the wrong place to look for validation, especially after throwing money on pseudoscience.


----------



## roadcykler

proton007 said:


> It may be as you say, but I can also think of another reason. Validation.
> 
> Post purchase dissonance is usually remedied by validation. Telling others you've bought something and hearing positive things about your purchase relieves the symptoms.
> 
> However, this is the wrong place to look for validation, especially after throwing money on pseudoscience.


 
  
 Indeed. I'd guess you have a better reason there. If one buys a $5000 set of speaker cables, they dang well better improve the sound, right?


----------



## xnor

roadcykler said:


> Indeed. I'd guess you have a better reason there. If one buys a $5000 set of speaker cables, they dang well better improve the sound, right?


 
 Sure, that's also one of the main reasons people discard measurements. Expensive speakers/headphones better measure close to perfect, else there's something wrong with the ... measurements ... right? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 If the SRH1840 sounds harsh for example it's not the headphone, but the wrong amp you're using... it's never the headphones!!!


----------



## miceblue

This just in:
 http://blog.shure.com/shure-notes/understanding-earphone-and-headphone-specifications/

  
 I think I should get a 10 W amp to drive my HE-6 because it can use the extra "oomph" to properly "drive" them so that they "sing" or "shine."


----------



## Skavoovie

miceblue said:


> I think I should get a 10 W amp to drive my HE-6 because it can use the extra "oomph" to properly "drive" them so that they "sing" or "shine."


 
 I know it's blasphemy here, but I think the subjectivists might be on to something with HE-6 based on their anecdotal power observations along with Innerfidelity measurements.
  
 I agree that a large power reserve that is never used should have no positive sound contribution.
  
 However, if you use the Hifiman spec (83.5dB/mW), yes, 10W seems quite excessive (123.5dB SPL).  But if you calculate sensitivity from the Innerfidelity measurements, you get around 77dB/mW.  Then you start needing 2W to get to 110dB SPL (versus 450mW) or over 6W to get to 115dB SPL (head room, yada yada).  10W is _only_ 117dB SPL, which is obviously screaming loud, but I don't tend to draw the unreasonable line until >120dB SPL.
  
 Now, I could write this off as being one sample that is less sensitive than normal.  But I've also looked at the Innerfidelity measurements for various copies of K 701 (and relatives) and they seem closer to 87dB/mW rather than AKG's 93dB/mW spec.
  
 Maybe Innerfidelity just measures considerably lower than the manufacturers based on methodology (so few specs even list the sensitivity frequency or range of frequencies, grr).  HE-400 as measured by Innerfidelity are 95dB/mW versus the spec'ed 92.5dB/mW.  So I don't think that's quite it either.
  
 I won't conclude with a fallacious "the truth is in the middle somewhere" statement, but my trust in manufacturers' published sensitivity spec plus math is a bit more...  skeptical now.  Is nothing sacred?
  
 I don't know if this 'revelation' was made long ago on this subforum or elsewhere, but given the dubious quality typical of other manufacturer specs, I probably shouldn't have been nearly as surprised as I was.


----------



## dclaz

Just watched the audiophile myth workshop vid, was great. Thanks for posting it.
  
 Is there any other good videos in the same vein?


----------



## xnor

miceblue said:


> This just in:
> http://blog.shure.com/shure-notes/understanding-earphone-and-headphone-specifications/


 
  
 I like that they mention that in-ears will sound different depending on your hearing (I'd have added: shape of your ear canal for example) and sleeves you use.
  
 The maximum input power bit is probably just causing confusion to the average person...  Maximum input power should _never _be used to "match" amps, that's nonsense. Also, 1W being typical ... really? First they talk about in-ears that blow up if you feed them 10 mW and then they say 1W is typical? It typically is enough to destroy many headphones, yes. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I also like the bit about impedance NOT being an indicator of sound quality, efficiency etc.
  
  


proxy1 said:


> Maybe people should just avoid absurdly inefficient headphones. . . .


 
 In the speaker world there's also the opposite craze. I guess the same is less appealing with headphones because we're usually just dealing with a few milliwatts to begin with (permanent hearing damage).


----------



## miceblue

[video]http://youtube.com/watch?v=xs1aUws0Lrs[/video]


----------



## Achmedisdead

miceblue said:


>


 
  
 No wonder their economy collapsed.....lol


----------



## xnor

Hahahahaahaaaaaa, that is too funny.
  
 "30% of my sound is the rack."
 "50% of my sound is the electricity."
  
 ...
  
 Let me guess ... 10% are the turntable, amp, etc. and 9% are cables and the rest is unimportant stuff like speakers?


----------



## Happy Camper

skavoovie said:


> I know it's blasphemy here, but I think the subjectivists might be on to something with HE-6 based on their anecdotal power observations along with Innerfidelity measurements.
> 
> I agree that a large power reserve that is never used should have no positive sound contribution.
> 
> ...


Take into consideration that it's not the "need" but that we have an amp that may work on that load. The HE designer used a 100w Threshold speaker amp at a meet and there were some heads turned to the option. I had speaker amps in storage that I'd not considered using on headphones. Using one has saved me money (isn't that the intent). While the load may not use near the amp's capability, it CAN be used.


----------



## xnor

skavoovie said:


> I know it's blasphemy here, but I think the subjectivists might be on to something with HE-6 based on their anecdotal power observations along with Innerfidelity measurements.


 
 Subjective claims make for good hypothesis sometimes. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Since we also have objective measurements and gross sensitivity differences are trivial to hear, nobody can deny the inefficiency of the HE-6. Nevertheless you're probably not gonna need over 2 W output power, unless you really are into hearing damage or listen to very soft recordings. But those + the HE-6 is probably the worst case combination.
  


> I won't conclude with a fallacious "the truth is in the middle somewhere" statement, but my trust in manufacturers' published sensitivity spec plus math is a bit more...  skeptical now.  Is nothing sacred?
> 
> I don't know if this 'revelation' was made long ago on this subforum or elsewhere, but given the dubious quality typical of other manufacturer specs, I probably shouldn't have been nearly as surprised as I was.


 
 Never trust specs and there are also manufacturing variations. Some manufacturers explicitly specify +/- 3 dB for the sensitivity, so if you're lucky your headphone could be 6 dB more sensitive then the next one on the shelf. Maybe even more..


----------



## anodyne

I come around to this community from time to time, and it's the first time I've seen this thread and I'm going to read it from the start when I have more time. But, I'm going to throw in a statement anyway:
  
 The pursuit of the transparent and neutral sound is a big thing, but... who really has neutral ears?


----------



## xnor

anodyne said:


> The pursuit of the transparent and neutral sound is a big thing, but... who really has neutral ears?


 
 When everyone perceives colors slightly different why do we need monitors with accurate colors? An obvious answer would be that, for example, a calibrated monitor will render a transition from black to white smoothly and uniformly. You can see details in very dark images but also very bright ones which would otherwise be "hidden". Similarly a headphone with a smooth frequency response will not mask details. It won't draw attention to a certain boosted frequency range.
  
 On "neutral ears":
 The frequency responses of our ears are inherently non-flat. We're used to that and our brains actually use that information to determine where sound is coming from. How do we know how a certain instrument, person's voice etc. sound like? You store in your brain how it sounds.
  
 Now record the instrument or voice with a flat mic and play it through flat speakers - sounds fine. Play it through colored speakers - sounds colored. It really doesn't matter how much your ears color the sound, because they do it consistently 24 hours 7 days a week.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

xnor said:


> When everyone perceives colors slightly different why do we need monitors with accurate colors? An obvious answer would be that, for example, a calibrated monitor will render a transition from black to white smoothly and uniformly. You can see details in very dark images but also very bright ones which would otherwise be "hidden". Similarly a headphone with a smooth frequency response will not mask details. It won't draw attention to a certain boosted frequency range.
> 
> On "neutral ears":
> The frequency responses of our ears are inherently non-flat. We're used to that and our brains actually use that information to determine where sound is coming from. How do we know how a certain instrument, person's voice etc. sound like? You store in your brain how it sounds.
> ...




Not really--I know my ears make the same stereo at home sound awful one day and awesome the next. They have an especially hard time making up their minds after a headphone meet


----------



## xnor

Nah. Hyped bass and treble might sound exciting at first but gets tiring after a while. A smooth frequency response sounds awesome even after years.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I don't think my ears quite appreciate the totally neutral sound. I have a multiband compressor (a Frankensteinian contraption built of 2 crossovers and 4 broadband compressor VSTs) turned on almost all the time, usuaally for de-essing but I don't mind the effect even for general listening :rolleyes:


----------



## anodyne

xnor said:


> When everyone perceives colors slightly different why do we need monitors with accurate colors? An obvious answer would be that, for example, a calibrated monitor will render a transition from black to white smoothly and uniformly. You can see details in very dark images but also very bright ones which would otherwise be "hidden". Similarly a headphone with a smooth frequency response will not mask details. It won't draw attention to a certain boosted frequency range.
> 
> On "neutral ears":
> The frequency responses of our ears are inherently non-flat. We're used to that and our brains actually use that information to determine where sound is coming from. How do we know how a certain instrument, person's voice etc. sound like? You store in your brain how it sounds.
> ...


 
  
 I have different experiences with IEMs and external sounds. When the sound is inside the ear canal the "brain EQ" kicks in after a while of getting used to a pair of IEMs. But with external sound (including cans) I often get a lot of trouble with midrange. Outer ears are evolved to help pick up certain frequencies better than others, and I think mine do it better than the average. So I find that a neutral response curve, like with studio gear I've listened to, gives me listening fatigue much easier than with more hi-fi oriented equipment.
  
 It's more an issue about sensitivity than color, I think. And, I think my realization is that I need to find the right sound rather than chasing numbers that indicate the perfect sound reproduction.


----------



## bigshot

joe bloggs said:


> I know my ears make the same stereo at home sound awful one day and awesome the next.


 
  
 That happened to me. My system sounded anemic. I tried to fix it with EQ and nothing worked. Then I noticed the dog had tripped over the power cable to the subwoofer and unplugged it. The woofer took the woof out of my woofer!


----------



## xnor

What I find natural (you may call it "neutral") isn't that response with anemic bass and mids in the foreground and piercing highs.
  
 It's a smooth response with bass > mids > treble. Ideally, all your preference may change is the downward tilt of the frequency response. Some like a bit more bass, others a bit more treble, but on average you arrive in the natural middle.


----------



## bigshot

Why would engineers in a studio with calibrated monitors that are stone flat create a mix that had thin bass, mids in the foreground and piercing highs? If that's the sound you get, you aren't flat.


----------



## gnarlsagan

xnor said:


> What I find natural (you may call it "neutral") isn't that response with anemic bass and mids in the foreground and piercing highs.
> 
> It's a smooth response with bass > mids > treble. Ideally, all your preference may change is the downward tilt of the frequency response. Some like a bit more bass, others a bit more treble, but on average you arrive in the natural middle.




This is a great way to put it. Transitions between frequencies should be smooth, but there is room for subjectivity in the slope of the FR. 

Relatedly, lately I'm finding that iems need more emphasis below ~60Hz than what has traditionally been considered to be flat. The new Olive-Welti reference seems to show there's some merit there as well. I'm looking forward to more iem makers using O-W as a reference.


----------



## anodyne

bigshot said:


> Why would engineers in a studio with calibrated monitors that are stone flat create a mix that had thin bass, mids in the foreground and piercing highs? If that's the sound you get, you aren't flat.


 
  
 Engineers are an interesting subject. I'm a photographer, and I have developed a mechanic in my brain that allows me to predict how the light my eyes perceive will end up on the much more limited range of the particular camera sensor or film I'm using. When I look the photo on the PC screen I can imagine how a print on a particular type of paper will work under a certain type of lighting... and so on.
  
 Engineers must have something similar when it comes to monitors, room acoustics and audio perception.


----------



## anodyne

xnor said:


> .





> It really doesn't matter how much your ears color the sound, because they do it consistently 24 hours 7 days a week.


 
  
 Came to think of something else. Hearing is not consistent 24/7. There's the recommendation that you find your comfort volume before exercise and don't increase it during training to avoid hearing damage. Blood pressure, I think. So, it's probably likely that your audio sounds differently on a Monday evening after you've picked up the kids or battled your way through a crowded supermarket on your way home from work than it does on a Sunday afternoon after a long lunch on the patio and a stroll to the ice cream place.


----------



## swspiers

bigshot said:


> Why would engineers in a studio with calibrated monitors that are stone flat create a mix that had thin bass, mids in the foreground and piercing highs? If that's the sound you get, you aren't flat.


 
 Apparently you never listened to early Genesis...


----------



## bigshot

Back in the day, I had it all in Charisma UK LP pressings. Sounded fine. Well, as fine as overworked, noodley, meandering pretention can possibly sound...


----------



## swspiers

bigshot said:


> Back in the day, I had it all in Charisma UK LP pressings. Sounded fine. Well, as fine as overworked, noodley, meandering pretention can possibly sound...


 
  
 +1





  
 Ok, silly joking aside.  I like the direction the discussion is going, but I would like to add one thing: we do not 'hear' with our ears.  It's much more complex than that, and involves the auditory cortex as well as elements of the limbic system.  From an objective point of view, 'neutral' is desirable if one is willing to listen to and explore the different tastes and implementations of various engineers and producers, or sound signature.
  
 Venturing into old Prog territory, Eddie Offord had a sound that was totally distinct from say, Conny Plank. I suspect that most people think that good music sounds the same, which is why they prefer 'colored' sound reproduction vs. neutral.  To be objective in listening to music, I think that one must be willing to explore, appreciate, and enjoy multiple sound signatures.  I am not sure how common that is...


----------



## xnor

anodyne said:


> Came to think of something else. Hearing is not consistent 24/7. There's the recommendation that you find your comfort volume before exercise and don't increase it during training to avoid hearing damage. Blood pressure, I think. So, it's probably likely that your audio sounds differently on a Monday evening after you've picked up the kids or battled your way through a crowded supermarket on your way home from work than it does on a Sunday afternoon after a long lunch on the patio and a stroll to the ice cream place.


 
 Yes there are even physical exceptions such as the acoustic reflex, but the pinna and ear canal will "shape" the sound (I'm usually using the physics definition = oscillation of pressure traveling through air) consistently e.g. depending on the direction the sound is coming from.
 I'm talking about the huge roughly +15 dB boost around 3 kHz for example. If there were no consistency then we'd have a much harder time localizing sound sources.
  
  
 Of course, depending on my mood I might prefer Deep Purple over some Metal band or vice-versa, but that doesn't change the sound imo. A bad cold would though.


----------



## anodyne

xnor said:


> Yes there are even physical exceptions such as the acoustic reflex, but the pinna and ear canal will "shape" the sound (I'm usually using the physics definition = oscillation of pressure traveling through air) consistently e.g. depending on the direction the sound is coming from.
> I'm talking about the huge roughly +15 dB boost around 3 kHz for example. If there were no consistency then we'd have a much harder time localizing sound sources.


 
  
 I guess this subject needs a separation between "color" and "frequency perception". Color is what the brain does with the input and I suppose that goes in the hairy and somewhat more philosophical category of qualia, while the variations in frequency perception is a more physical thing that can be measured and changes from person to person, with body state and over time as we age.
  
 So, I think my point is that anyone interested in good sound should think a little more about how their ears work. It could be particularly useful for those who refuse equalizers and keep spending even more money on the next slightly more perfect-tested component without getting a sound they really enjoy anyway.


----------



## proton007

anodyne said:


> So, I think my point is that anyone interested in good sound should think a little more about how their ears work. It could be particularly useful for those who refuse equalizers and keep spending even more money on the next slightly more perfect-tested component without getting a sound they really enjoy anyway.


 
  
 I agree with the point above, but IMO one way to keep things simple is to use IEMs and headphones.
  
 Reason being, the room is a much bigger place for sound to move in, and room acoustics, speaker placement, and listening position can make a world of difference. Add to that your speaker FR, EQ and the usual setup issues, so you're dealing with a lot of variables.
  
 Ofcourse, the payback maybe worth the effort, but creating a good setup takes a lot of effort. If you just don't have the space, or patience, its best to stick to IEMs and headphones.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

proton007 said:


> I agree with the point above, but IMO one way to keep things simple is to use IEMs and headphones.
> 
> Reason being, the room is a much bigger place for sound to move in, and room acoustics, speaker placement, and listening position can make a world of difference. Add to that your speaker FR, EQ and the usual setup issues, so you're dealing with a lot of variables.
> 
> Ofcourse, the payback maybe worth the effort, but creating a good setup takes a lot of effort. If you just don't have the space, or patience, its best to stick to IEMs and headphones.




I disagree. Having spent some time with both headphone and loudspeaker equalization I think the latter is easier to do. Just buy a measurement mic, place at listening position and you're almost set. With headphones it's close to impossible to get a state-of-the-art sound result without access to a state-of-the-art loudspeaker rig as well as in-ear measurement apparatus. Even quite modest HT amps come with room measurement and correction capability these days. But you'll never see a headphone amp bundled with a dummy head for headphone measurements because everyone's ears are different. In the loudspeaker world it doesn't matter, as you just need to reproduce the sound waves of the original venue and all different ears will hear the same great fidelity. In headphone audio there is no such convenience.


----------



## bigshot

I had absolutely no luck with automatic EQ with a sensor mike. I tried it and the curve got tied in knots. I had to do it the hard way.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bigshot said:


> I had absolutely no luck with automatic EQ with a sensor mike. I tried it and the curve got tied in knots. I had to do it the hard way.


 
  
 So you didn't use measurement data at all?  You could have used Room EQ Wizard, got FR charts for individual channels and then dialled EQs manually based on this information.


----------



## xnor

Problem with speakers on the other hand is dispersion and the room. The person sitting next to you might not get that great fidelity.


----------



## Cat Face

Dispersion? The head related transfer function is one of the good points of speaker listening! That, and with a proper fullrange that extends all the way to the infrasonic range, even at modest listening levels the music has amazing presence and drive that is impossible to simulate with headphones. Headphones can neither simulate the multi-channel surround sensation as well as I'd like, and are equally lacking in the LFE impact in movies.


----------



## bigshot

That's stage two. Once you get things working in your main listening position, you start moving around the room and making adjustments to get things better overall. But basically, the goal is to create a natural soundstage in the front of the room. The room acoustics are part of that soundstage, not an impediment to be corrected. You want it to sound as close as possible to the way it would sound if the performers were sitting in front of you. If you are to the left of center, the soundstage will reflect that just as live performers would.


----------



## bigshot

joe bloggs said:


> So you didn't use measurement data at all?


 
  
 I started by running a microphone sample, but the biggest problem with a 5:1 system isn't just the EQ... it's also the levels of the various channels to get everything to mesh properly in the middle. The automatic EQ turned the volume of the rear channels up WAY too far and dialed my subwoofer out entirely. The only thing it correctly identified was a hump around the 80Hz cross between my mains and my sub. I kept that and went back to balancing volume levels all around to create the proper sound field. That affected the EQ, so I went back and tweaked EQ, which affected the volume levels and sound field, and so on... It was a series of parallel parking back and forths for a few months, with progressively smaller and smaller corrections until I got it right.
  
 When I got it to work properly with music, I put on a modern movie with low frequency info and it started to shake the walls. I found I had to completely rework the low end, fine tuning the hand off from mains to sub even more. Now, I finally have it completely balanced all around and everything I play through it sounds right. It was a LOT of work. Not at all just setting out a mike and pushing a button.
  
 I have a friend who is a sound mixer for live concerts and I told him about my struggles and he laughed and said "now you know what my life is like!" He said he goes into venues where the theater or amphitheater owners tell him that they had a tech come in with a sampling microphone and flatten the response. But he starts running sound through and finds that it's still all over the map. He said his first job after setting up is correcting the corrections.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bigshot said:


> I started by running a microphone sample, but the biggest problem with a 5:1 system isn't just the EQ... it's also the levels of the various channels to get everything to mesh properly in the middle. The automatic EQ turned the volume of the rear channels up WAY too far and dialed my subwoofer out entirely. The only thing it correctly identified was a hump around the 80Hz cross between my mains and my sub. I kept that and went back to balancing volume levels all around to create the proper sound field. That affected the EQ, so I went back and tweaked EQ, which affected the volume levels and sound field, and so on... It was a series of parallel parking back and forths for a few months, with progressively smaller and smaller corrections until I got it right.
> 
> When I got it to work properly with music, I put on a modern movie with low frequency info and it started to shake the walls. I found I had to completely rework the low end, fine tuning the hand off from mains to sub even more. Now, I finally have it completely balanced all around and everything I play through it sounds right. It was a LOT of work. Not at all just setting out a mike and pushing a button.
> 
> I have a friend who is a sound mixer for live concerts and I told him about my struggles and he laughed and said "now you know what my life is like!" He said he goes into venues where the theater or amphitheater owners tell him that they had a tech come in with a sampling microphone and flatten the response. But he starts running sound through and finds that it's still all over the map. He said his first job after setting up is correcting the corrections.


 
  
 My guess is improper positioning of the measurement mic... do you post at avsforum.com?  There's a bunch of geniuses there who really know their stuff about measurement and calibration.  It's certainly not as simple as pushing a button, there are many things that can go wrong with the measurement and automatic corrections, but I believe the better way forward would have been trying to fix the measurement and correction process first rather than futz with the resultant EQ immediately.


----------



## bigshot

I have little confidence in automatic EQ, I'm afraid.


----------



## anodyne

xnor said:


> Problem with speakers on the other hand is dispersion and the room. The person sitting next to you might not get that great fidelity.


 
  
 And that's why desktop monitors are great for personal stereo listening. Your sweet spot is close to the speakers, while the walls are far enough away that the inverse distance law takes care of much of the room problems.


----------



## bigshot

I ran into something unusual today. I was ripping the new Decca Sound Analogue Years box, and the Szell/Curzon Brahms 1 and Mozart 27 runs 83 minutes. I've never seen a CD with that much on it. Didn't know it was possible even.


----------



## anodyne

It's because some performances are so good they warp spacetime...
  
 Actually, as far as I know it would be possible to make CDs even longer playing than that, but the number of players that are able to track the discs would drop of as the density increases.
  
 The follow up question is how it affects playback quality. Even if the player can play the track, can it do so without dropping bits?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

How did the measurement with your engineer friend coming over go?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

anodyne said:


> It's because some performances are so good they warp spacetime...
> 
> Actually, as far as I know it would be possible to make CDs even longer playing than that, but the number of players that are able to track the discs would drop of as the density increases.
> 
> The follow up question is how it affects playback quality. Even if the player can play the track, can it do so without dropping bits?




I thought longer playtime is achieved by writing further and further out to the edge of the disc... The actual data density can be futzed with too?


----------



## anodyne

I remember reading something more technical, but here's some Wikipedia quoting: "Playing times beyond 74 minutes are achieved by decreasing track pitch beyond the original _Red Book_ standard. Most players can accommodate the more closely spaced data."


----------



## xnor

800 MB (90 min) CD-Rs are not that uncommon. And I know at least one German company selling 900 MB (100 min) ones.
  
 Red Book spec allows up to ~80 minutes but there are some Audio CDs longer than that. I guess current CD drives have no problem reading even 90 min ones.


----------



## miceblue

Gah, sometimes audiophool jargon confuses the heck out of me.
  
 Amp A from company X sounds neutral. Then when company X releases a new amp, amp B, it sounds even more neutral. Wat?
  
 Amp C has Y power and amp D has 2Y power. Headphone H sounds much better on amp D and the only conclusion is because headphone H "scales up" and can "benefit" from the 2Y power that amp D offers.
  
 Portable media player P has DAC 1 and amp 1. Portable media player Q has DAC 2 and amp 2. Portable media player Q sounds much better because of amp 2. Wat? Didn't these people go to elementary school and learn about the scientific method's 3 fundamental variables (controlled, manipulated, responding)? You can't compare P and Q and draw a conclusion that Q sounds better because of amp 2 when they're both different players all together. Ugh....people.


----------



## anodyne

miceblue said:


> Amp A from company X sounds neutral. Then when company X releases a new amp, amp B, it sounds even more neutral. Wat?


 
  
 Neutrality is exponential.  So, if amp A has a neutrality of =110  then amp B may have been improved to =111


----------



## proton007

miceblue said:


> Gah, sometimes audiophool jargon confuses the heck out of me.
> 
> Amp A from company X sounds neutral. Then when company X releases a new amp, amp B, it sounds even more neutral. Wat?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Replace the variables with names of people, and you've got society.


----------



## xnor

miceblue said:


> Amp A from company X sounds neutral. Then when company X releases a new amp, amp B, it sounds even more neutral. Wat?


 
 Hah yeah, that's indeed a problem with transparent amps.
  
 Fine companies will make amps that sound pretty much the same within reasonable limits and differentiate their products by size, looks/design, features, max power, gain factor(s), connectors etc.
  
 Others will botch the sound because they think they can only sell customers an upgrade if it sounds different. Note: different is supposed to be better...
  
  


> Amp C has Y power and amp D has 2Y power. Headphone H sounds much better on amp D and the only conclusion is because headphone H "scales up" and can "benefit" from the 2Y power that amp D offers.


 
 Evidence of failure to do a proper level-matched comparison and that bias changes what you hear (moa powahhh!! it has to be better! oh I can hear it, yay!).
  


> Portable media player P has DAC 1 and amp 1. Portable media player Q has DAC 2 and amp 2. Portable media player Q sounds much better because of amp 2. Wat? Didn't these people go to elementary school and learn about the scientific method's 3 fundamental variables (controlled, manipulated, responding)? You can't compare P and Q and draw a conclusion that Q sounds better because of amp 2 when they're both different players all together. Ugh....people.


 
 Adding to that: assuming that none has audible flaws and very similar output impedance we're back to the previous point I made.
  
 Amp 2 may have a bit higher gain, or a bit lower output impedance, which makes it louder = usually perceived as better.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *xnor* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Evidence of failure to do a proper level-matched comparison and that bias changes what you hear (moa powahhh!! it has to be better! oh I can hear it, yay!).


 
   
The more powerful amp is likely to also have higher gain, and will be perceived to sound better simply because it is louder without accurate level matching (setting the volume "by ear" is biased towards equalizing the position of the volume controls, rather than the actual loudness). The practice of selling amps with unnecessarily high gain, and DACs with a high output level, can be thought of as a form of the "loudness war" for audio devices.


----------



## xnor

stv014 said:


> The practice of selling amps with unnecessarily high gain, and DACs with a high output level, can be thought of as a form of the "loudness war" for audio devices.


 
  
 on the comparison,  on that practice


----------



## miceblue

Awesome....
 I just now used the Dynamic Range meter on a few files.
  
 CD rip track: DR11
 HD Tracks track: DR10
  

  
 I don't know what the heck the HD Tracks version did to the track, but I can clearly hear a difference.


Spoiler: Foobar2000 ABX Log



foo_abx 1.3.4 report
 foobar2000 v1.2.9
 2013/10/22 10:27:20

 File A: C:\Users\Michael\Desktop\01 Crazy.m4a
 File B: C:\Users\Michael\Desktop\03 Crazy.m4a

 10:27:20 : Test started.
 10:29:31 : 00/01  100.0%
 10:30:23 : 01/02  75.0%
 10:30:31 : 02/03  50.0%
 10:30:37 : 03/04  31.3%
 10:31:14 : 04/05  18.8%
 10:31:25 : 05/06  10.9%
 10:31:30 : 06/07  6.3%
 10:31:38 : 07/08  3.5%
 10:31:45 : 08/09  2.0%
 10:31:49 : 09/10  1.1%
 10:31:53 : 10/11  0.6%
 10:31:59 : 11/12  0.3%
 10:32:03 : 12/13  0.2%
 10:32:13 : 13/14  0.1%
 10:32:26 : 14/15  0.0%
 10:32:44 : 15/16  0.0%
 10:32:48 : 16/17  0.0%
 10:32:52 : 17/18  0.0%
 10:32:59 : 18/19  0.0%
 10:33:08 : 19/20  0.0%
 10:33:13 : 20/21  0.0%
 10:33:18 : 21/22  0.0%
 10:33:19 : Test finished.

  ----------
 Total: 21/22 (0.0%)


 I didn't even use a fancy setup for this test: MacBook Pro -> V-MODA Crossfade M-100.
  
 Track A had the vocals more centered, whereas in track B it was slightly to the left. I used the Replay Gain option to make sure they were about the same volume level. Track B has a more stereo L/R kind of sound to it, whereas A sounds distant and it soundstage is long and reverberant as if some sort of DSP effect was added. Maybe this reverberant effect is why people say HD tracks "sound better?"
  
 Then again, I'm comparing two different album's shared track, so that might be a factor. Dang it. I thought I was on to something. So much for my last post. XD


----------



## Cat Face

For future reference, "about the same level" doesn't cut it, you would do well to have them 0.5dB apart at maximum. However if the reverb/DSP is that easily audible there's little to no reason to conduct a blind test. You don't have to blind taste an apple in comparison to manure, only between various different flavours of apple and maybe a really mutated pear.
  
 Also, I never found the dynamic range meter to correlate with better sounding mix or better mastering, it's just a silly simplistic figure just like megapickles and gigahurtz, or frequency ranges without tight tolerances. Even though using very limiting compression is not wise, restricting the record to a few MSB from the available 16 ones, I find this elitism surrounding dynamic range silly (which coincidentally has also created a craze over storage formats like DSD and 24/196).
  
 As far as automatic room EQ goes, slapping a surround set in an un-treated room and assuming that you can fix it with an automated routine is far fetched, even if you averaged the measurement between a few different spots. Nothing is going to fix the room going modal resulting in nulls, and long reverb times are still going to stay. You can only flatten the frequency response by a certain amount, the largest gains are in placement and acoustic treatment, and it might've been placebo since we didn't blind test it but delay played a huge part in the surround experience, more so than the levels between channels.


----------



## stv014

cat face said:


> For future reference, "about the same level" doesn't cut it, you would do well to have them 0.5dB apart at maximum.


 
  
 0.1 dB in fact, a difference of 0.5 dB is audible.


----------



## miceblue

I don't exactly know what ReplayGain does, so that's why I mentioned "about the same;" it was mentioned elsewhere that it allows for volume-matching between two tracks.


As for another audiophool term, what is "drive" supposed to describe? "Oh yes, with the X amp, your Y headphones should be properly "driven;" or "unless your Y headphones are properly "driven," they won't sound very good.

I came across this term for the AKG K 701 and consequently, I was expecting them to sound like garbage when "driven" from my Clip Zip or iPod Touch 2G. I didn't even remotely find that to be the case.


----------



## xnor

ReplayGain (version 2) in foobar2000 is based on EBU R-128 which is a very good loudness algorithm. R128Gain is a nice standalone (cross platform) tool too. Atm it's probably the best way to match loudness of multiple tracks automatically.
  
  
 I find "properly driven" curious too. The only way German speaking headphones nuts use "drive" is in, for example, the question: "What amp(s) do you use to drive your headphone(s)?"
  
 I guess that there are a couple of unwritten rules for an amp to "properly drive" your headphones:
 - the better the headphone the more expensive the amp needs to be (it's not uncommon to see people with $200 headphones using >$200 amps)
 - higher gain than necessary
 - more output power than necessary
 - marketing material needs to be targeted at audiophiles
 - objective performance doesn't matter as long as it sounds nice to one's biased perception (and to a real audiophile it does not if one of the above points aren't met 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)
 ...


----------



## Cat Face

Some non-objectivists are after this concept of inter-gadget "synergy". While digging tube amplifiers is okay if you like the sound, I find it ludicrous how it oftentimes seems that coupling differently flawed/non-transparent gear with each other is seen as "real hi-fi" and objectivists who at least conduct some informal blind tests get debunked as people who "only read theory" and lack "real world experience". Silly anecdotes like "non-owners speak the loudest" are often used to try discredit any reasonable questioning of their methodology or mindset regarding criticism towards masturbatory glorification of inferior gear and cable swapping.


----------



## xnor

Nobody needs to hear (although some of you may have) a SRH1x40 to understand that the 2% - 3% distortion (dominantly 3rd harmonic) that ranges up into to the midrange sounds terrible.
  
 Proud owners are blind to that and reason.


----------



## miceblue

What do you guys think about this?

  
 Versus


----------



## briskly

The first looks like a certain inexpensive closed headphone, an on ear. Peaking at around 9khz or so, and lacking in the upper-mid to low-treble, pretty common as measured. Surprisingly smooth in the bass and mids. As a disclaimer, Tyll's head should be taken with a few grains of margin past 8khz. Looks nice.
  
 The second looks like a certain not-quite-sealed up headphone that happens to cost a pretty penny, closed over-ear. Bassy as all hell, much smoother in the mid to treble, with a much lower rise in the 7-8khz area for "sparkle". Good, not necessarily my flavor.
  
 Not much can be said about distortion on either without knowing the level of each harmonic, except that it probably won't be bothersome with the low levels on either. Sensitivity plays nice with portable players, power handling seems good.


----------



## xnor

The former one lacks a light downwards slope, boost around 3 kHz and has a treble peak. Not enough energy above 12 kHz.
  
 The second one probably sounds bassier than it really is due to the dip at 500-600 Hz, seems to have better treble extension but also lacks a bit around 2 kHz. Dip at ~10 kHz seems weird, probably no "sparkle" at all.


----------



## miceblue

Hm, interesting to hear your impressions. The former is $30 USD, the latter is $2000 USD. I remember reading somewhere on HeadRoom's website that a typical headphone graph "should" have a flat frequency response up until 1 kHz, in which it should then slope downwards. I guess the slope for the former graph is too steep. For $30 though, I thought it measured pretty dang well.
  
 I just saw this:

  
 and it makes me wonder why people design DACs and amps with cases that are much larger than the actual components within the case.


----------



## bigshot

I just got a camera that can shoot 360 degree panoramas in a single shot. I'll shoot a picture of my listening room tomorrow and post it.


----------



## gnarlsagan

bigshot said:


> I just got a camera that can shoot 360 degree panoramas in a single shot. I'll shoot a picture of my listening room tomorrow and post it.




Looking forward to it!


----------



## krismusic

Me too!


----------



## bigshot

Here is a picture of the room from last year that I stitched together from iPhone shots...
  

  
 And here are panorama I just shot this afternoon... The lighting back there isn't ideal. But it will give you the idea.
  
 Screen up
 https://theta360.com/s/a5
  
 Screen down
 https://theta360.com/s/a6
  
 You'll see my "woofers" in there. The white and brown pomeranian is "Pickles" and the little black pomchi is "Schlitzee".


----------



## Achmedisdead

bigshot said:


> Here is a picture of the room from last year that I stitched together from iPhone shots...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Looks like a great place to hang out!


----------



## krismusic

That is one heck of a man cave! You shoot the decor yourself? I bet the room sounds good too. That vaulted ceiling and plenty of soft furnishings. The panorama camera is very impressive too. I like the fact that you can drag the image around manually.


----------



## proton007

Nah, thats too clean to be a man cave.


----------



## bigshot

I have a lady that comes in and takes care of that stuff for me. The only thing I get to mess up is my desk and workspace.
  
 The couches are actually placed to prevent reflections on the side. Kind of like room treatment with furniture.
  
 I capture all my own big game... on ebay!


----------



## krismusic

A woman that does eh? The way forward. I could see that a lot of thought had gone into acoustics. You pleased with the way it all sounds? I gave up with speakers in my main room as the dimensions and layout were hopeless. Hence headphones!


----------



## miceblue

What does the "speed" of a headphone mean, and what of the Innerfidelity.com measurements is indicative of it? I know what it's supposed to mean, but how does one describe it? i.e. What do snare drums or cymbals sound like if they were from a "slow" headphone versus a "fast" one?

Does speed relate to how one perceives the soundstage and/or imaging?

Innerfidelity measures the impulse response and claims more oscillations/wiggles indicates a smaller soundstage, or was it imaging?


----------



## xnor

There's a difference between speed and speed.
 High speed of the driver means great transient response so it can reproduce high frequencies better. If you see an early roll-off the driver is "slower".
  
 Perceived speed is a more complex matter. For example, boosted sub bass may give the impression of "slow" and "lagging behind" bass.


----------



## Muinarc

miceblue said:


> What do snare drums or cymbals sound like if they were from a "slow" headphone versus a "fast" one?



 


The term you may hear with a snare drum that I like to use is "snap", if you've ever been around a drummer hitting the snare at full power you can feel it physically, and while its not really possible to exactly recreate that feeling with a headphone, it is amazing how much of that feeling can be relayed through a good pair.

The stuff xnor said is pretty spot on as well.


----------



## bigshot

The decay on a snare drum is several orders of magnitude slower than any headphone. Speed is mostly placebo.


----------



## Muinarc

bigshot said:


> The decay on a snare drum is several orders of magnitude slower than any headphone. Speed is mostly placebo.



 


Yeah, I was focusing more on the attack than the decay I guess since miceblue mentioned impulse response. Driver design and diaphragm materials can have an effect on this.


----------



## xnor

Or if a headphone reproduces the faster decaying overtones of an instrument louder, for example because of a treble boost, it's probably gonna be *perceived *as "faster".
 The speed and timing relationship didn't really change though.
  
 I could also think of high amounts of distortion mudding up the whole spectrum which could cause the decay of distinct tones to be perceived as faster (they would disappear earlier in all the added distortion products).


----------



## miceblue

xnor said:


> There's a difference between speed and speed.
> High speed of the driver means great transient response so it can reproduce high frequencies better. If you see an early roll-off the driver is "slower".
> 
> Perceived speed is a more complex matter. For example, boosted sub bass may give the impression of "slow" and "lagging behind" bass.


 
  


xnor said:


> Or if a headphone reproduces the faster decaying overtones of an instrument louder, for example because of a treble boost, it's probably gonna be *perceived *as "faster".
> The speed and timing relationship didn't really change though.
> 
> I could also think of high amounts of distortion mudding up the whole spectrum which could cause the decay of distinct tones to be perceived as faster (they would disappear earlier in all the added distortion products).


 
 I think that's why I think headphones sound "fast" or "slow." :/
 i.e. LCD-2 sounds "slow" to me because its bass is really prominent; the STAX SRS-2170 sounds "fast" to me since its treble seems to be reproduced without any obstruction of other sounds.
 ヽ（´ー｀）┌


----------



## Cat Face

don't all frequency response changes affect phase response? Could that explain any perceived "speed" of transients? There's an awful lot of discussion about group delay and transform phase differences between different subwoofer constructions and their audibility, but at such low frequencies and high wavelengths it pretty much doesn't really matter by any logic. How's the less tactile, more audible range then?


----------



## bigshot

muinarc said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > The decay on a snare drum is several orders of magnitude slower than any headphone. Speed is mostly placebo.
> ...


 
  
 No, the attack is still several orders of magnitude slower. We're talking about slivers of time that might shift enough to mess up a waveform if a frequency lines up wrong, but it isn't going to be anywhere near the transients you find in recorded music.


----------



## xnor

Well subs are often vented which causes quite a bit of group delay, or even passive radiator boxes which produce the highest group delay. We're talking about tens of milliseconds here but at very low frequencies where a single cycle can take 50 ms (= 1/20Hz).
  
 Headphones with really erratic frequency response may have some peaks of higher group delay, but they would have to be like very narrow +/- 10 dB peaks in the treble range to even approach a quarter of a millisecond.
 With some ANC headphones that have really steep bass roll-off you may approach a few milliseconds.
  
  
 No big deal if you ask me even in those worst cases.


----------



## xnor

miceblue said:


> I think that's why I think headphones sound "fast" or "slow." :/
> i.e. LCD-2 sounds "slow" to me because its bass is really prominent; the STAX SRS-2170 sounds "fast" to me since its treble seems to be reproduced without any obstruction of other sounds.
> ヽ（´ー｀）┌


 
  
 I don't see a problem unless.. you really want that "fast" sound but cannot stand boosted treble or lean bass response. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Tradeoffs everywhere..


----------



## uchihaitachi

Quick question,
  
 How would I go about recording music coming out from an aux out onto a mac?


----------



## miceblue

Wow, this is from 2009. That is so cool!

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi74rYk2ebQ[/VIDEO]


----------



## xnor

Take a look at iZotope RX.


----------



## miceblue

xnor said:


> Take a look at iZotope RX.



Huh, that looks like a pretty useful tool for audio manipulation. I cringed at its price tag though. XD

[rule]
How are a headphone's soundstage and imaging properties produced? All headphones have a diaphragm of some sort and they all move air; and yet, different headphones seem to create soundstages of varying sizes, and a sense of imaging different from others.

I'm listening to a piano-based music piece and I hear a very stereo-like sound, with sounds spread across the left and right channels. With a different headphone, I recall hearing the same piano piece, but the image was very centered and it sounded weird to me since I wasn't used to hearing the piano towards the center of my head, if that makes any sense at all.


----------



## xnor

miceblue said:


> Huh, that looks like a pretty useful tool for audio manipulation. I cringed at its price tag though. XD


 
 Yeah, just wanted to mention it because there are some videos showing impressive stuff done with it.
  


> How are a headphone's soundstage and imaging properties produced? All headphones have a diaphragm of some sort and they all move air; and yet, different headphones seem to create soundstages of varying sizes, and a sense of imaging different from others. I'm listening to a piano-based music piece and I hear a very stereo-like sound, with sounds spread across the left and right channels. With a different headphone, I recall hearing the same piano piece, but the image was very centered and it sounded weird to me since I wasn't used to hearing the piano towards the center of my head, if that makes any sense at all.


 
 Not a one-sentence topic. 
  
 Stuff will be located in the center by the brain if the *frequency response* and time delay is the same for both channels.
  
 Some ideas:
 No two drivers are perfectly matched. The left driver could be a bit louder at X Hz but softer at Y Hz so depending on the piano note played the sound could be located more to the left/right. Since one note contains many overtones this will result in a diffuse center.
 Our ears are not perfectly symmetrical. Different headphones (angled drivers, ear cup volume, in- vs over-ear etc.) interact differently with your ears, resulting in again frequency-dependent differences between the channels.


----------



## Copperears

Re: xnor's post above: I would suspect that's why Sennheiser has moved to designing their latest headphones with their "curved sonic wavefront" tech (makes me think of the Beach Boys.... "surf's up!"). In the HD800, HD700, HD598 and perhaps the Momentum around-ear. The goal seems to be precisely to increase the soundstaging.

Re; transients and headphones: taking a cue from using synths for years, and playing with transient curves to create sounds: anything shorter than about an 8ms attack transient for a sound tends to show up as a click, not an actually effective sonic event in the musical generation of sound. The "warm analogue" synthesizers that were pre-digital, and their excellent software equivalents now, tend to have transient attack phases of about 12ms. I suspect most "natural" musical instruments are 12ms and above, and this is for the initial attack (of course if the curve of the attack is logarithmic, linear or exponential this is going to have an effect on the nature of the transient as well).

But the main point is, it's all well past any kind of concern with the "slowness" of any kind of headphone on the attack; all of them are well within that spec, otherwise you'd be hearing horrible, distinctive noise instead of snares, hi-hats, triangles, etc.


----------



## bigshot

The term soundstage is the most misused word around here. Soundstage is a function of recording and playback on speakers, not headphones. Headphones don't have soundstage.


----------



## miceblue

I've been going by this definition:


> soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it.



http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

ヽ（´ー｀）┌


----------



## xnor

copperears said:


> Re: xnor's post above: I would suspect that's why Sennheiser has moved to designing their latest headphones with their "curved sonic wavefront" tech (makes me think of the Beach Boys.... "surf's up!"). In the HD800, HD700, HD598 and perhaps the Momentum around-ear. The goal seems to be precisely to increase the soundstaging.


 
 Wait what. The orthodynamic headphone manufacturers advertise with a planar wavefront and Sennheiser advertises with a curved wavefront? And dome drivers already produce a curved wavefront... Crazy world. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I also don't see how any of those headphones other than the HD800 would produce an HD800-like wavefront, because afaik that's the only one with a ring driver and the others don't seem to have some sort of special waveguide either. Not more special than the "paper" with the hole in the middle as found in the HD515 and up anyway.


----------



## bigshot

miceblue said:


> I've been going by this definition:
> http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html


 
  
 That's correct. When you set up speakers, you try to create the image of the performing space in front of you. Unless the band is playing in the space between your ears, that can be tough with headphones!


----------



## Copperears

xnor said:


> Wait what. The orthodynamic headphone manufacturers advertise with a planar wavefront and Sennheiser advertises with a curved wavefront? And dome drivers already produce a curved wavefront... Crazy world.
> 
> I also don't see how any of those headphones other than the HD800 would produce an HD800-like wavefront, because afaik that's the only one with a ring driver and the others don't seem to have some sort of special waveguide either. Not more special than the "paper" with the hole in the middle as found in the HD515 and up anyway.




I stand honorably corrected, right, it's the ring driver thing (particularly good for Wagner!) that makes the difference.

I was thinking about Sennheiser's re-positioning of the angle of the transducers in relation to the ear that seems to be present in the newer 'phones. Everything turns to mush in my brain, cornmeal mush.


----------



## bigshot

One of the interesting things I've noticed is that both audiophools and skeptics can fall into the same trap of noodling the details down to the nth degree, while completely ignoring the overall goal. Sometimes I wonder if people like this really use their systems to listen to music in their home, or whether it's all about fancy wires, magical black boxes, or on the other side double blind testing procedures and theoretical physics. Whichever side of the fence, the advice is usually distinctly unhelpful to real people who just want their music to sound good.


----------



## xnor

bigshot, nobody expects the average consumer to do a proper double blind test. We "enthusiasts" do such tests so that others can build easily on the results instead of wading through flowery bs.
  
 If there was nobody doing the science there wouldn't be science. There also cannot be advancement if people just say: oh, vinyl and tubes are good enough to hear the music so let's leave it at that.
  
 I'm all for pointing out relations, what causes big changes and what doesn't, but sometimes people ask specific questions to get specific answers.


----------



## bigshot

It's just I see regular folk come in asking basic questions sometimes and getting buried under a lot of very complex details of physics and electrical engineering, complete with footnotes of rare exceptions to the rule. I just wonder how that is really helpful to them in getting their music to sound good. It's the same in the audiophool forums too, except there they get buried under reams of cut and paste sales literature, flowery descriptions and ginormous price tags.
  
 There should be a "horse sense" forum.


----------



## xnor

Without wanting to be rude: that's what we got you for!


----------



## bigshot

Man! I'm all horse! don't know about the sense though...


----------



## xnor

Did you know that horses have a wider hearing range than humans and that they can move their ears like 180° that allows for amazing localization?


----------



## swspiers

xnor said:


> Did you know that horses have a wider hearing range than humans and that they can move their ears like 180° that allows for amazing localization?


 

 +1


----------



## krismusic

xnor said:


> Did you know that horses have a wider hearing range than humans and that they can move their ears like 180° that allows for amazing localization?



Bigshot recently did 360.


----------



## bigshot

xnor said:


> Did you know that horses have a wider hearing range than humans and that they can move their ears like 180° that allows for amazing localization?


 
  
 I'm the other end of the animal!


----------



## xnor

bigshot said:


> I'm the other end of the animal!


 
 The other end?


----------



## bigshot

The end that goes over the fence last!


----------



## krismusic

Your not boasting about your ahem, manliness are you?


----------



## bigshot

No, the part of the horse that is a little bit behind that part.


----------



## vertical

xnor said:


> The other end?




Hah! Clever to embed that link in your question...


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> No, the part of the horse that is a little bit behind that part.



I think you do yourself an injustice there. I am always interested in your POV.


----------



## Don Hills

I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth than the horse's other end...


----------



## bigshot

Thanks Krismusic!


----------



## krismusic

More than welcome.


----------



## krismusic

Right. Let's get back to being grumpy!
I was talking with someone on one of the other forums and aftermarket cables came up. 
It occurred to me. If someone is convinced that a cable has improved the sound of their equipment and this is an ongoing perception does it matter if it is psychoacoustics?


----------



## MygpuK

Good day, anyone.
 Inviting all the sceptic good sirs to throw poopies in me regarding subjectivism in my threads.
 Links are below:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/690441/the-need-of-in-depth-sound-science-objectiveness-intro-to-the-sound-science-wall-of-text-thread
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/690471/theorycrafting-the-perfect-amp
  
 Thanks for the attention!


----------



## xnor

krismusic said:


> Right. Let's get back to being grumpy!
> I was talking with someone on one of the other forums and aftermarket cables came up.
> It occurred to me. If someone is convinced that a cable has improved the sound of their equipment and this is an ongoing perception does it matter if it is psychoacoustics?


 
  
 Does it matter if you believe in something that is false? Do you care whether your beliefs are true?
  
 There apparently have been some cases where the stock cable had a few ohms (!) so a different cable with lower resistance could actually cause an increase in volume for example (and we know how that is perceived).
 Still doesn't justify the cable maker's claims, pseudoscience, outrageous prices ...


----------



## krismusic

xnor said:


> Does it matter if you believe in something that is false? Do you care whether your beliefs are true?
> 
> There apparently have been some cases where the stock cable had a few ohms (!) so a different cable with lower resistance could actually cause an increase in volume for example (and we know how that is perceived).
> Still doesn't justify the cable maker's claims, pseudoscience, outrageous prices ...



I completely agree and would not want to give someone my money on that basis. 
It was interesting that someone who had spent money on a cable was prepared to accept that his enjoyment may well be the result of placebo but that did not concern him.
A bit of a non argument on my part. Apologies. That way madness lies!


----------



## MygpuK

krismusic said:


> I completely agree and would not want to give someone my money on that basis.
> It was interesting that someone who had spent money on a cable was prepared to accept that his enjoyment may well be the result of placebo but that did not concern him.
> A bit of a non argument on my part. Apologies. That way madness lies!


 
 Hello, good sir. How can you speak about "the basis" upon which you give money, when Head-fi doesn't even know what the term High-end sound equipment properly means??? And yes, I'm speaking about sound quality! It's not "tastes&sound_signature"!


----------



## bigshot

A cable that sounds different from all the other cables is a lousy cable.


----------



## miceblue

xnor said:


> krismusic said:
> 
> 
> > Right. Let's get back to being grumpy!
> ...



Huh. That's actually a good point that I didn't think about before!


----------



## xnor

No reason to apologize.
 It doesn't seem to be an uncommon position. Only when you ask the person whether they care about their beliefs being true they think about it. Sometimes it seems to be like the first time in their lives.


----------



## xnor

bigshot said:


> A cable that sounds different from all the other cables is a lousy cable.


 
 I agree.
  
 I think two headphone models were measured with a "lousy" stock cable, iirc. Tyll mentioned one and someone else.


----------



## MygpuK

Good sirs, how can you speak about which cable is better when i just throw to the recycle bin your whole vision about "high-end"??


----------



## Steve Eddy

krismusic said:


> Right. Let's get back to being grumpy!
> I was talking with someone on one of the other forums and aftermarket cables came up.
> It occurred to me. If someone is convinced that a cable has improved the sound of their equipment and this is an ongoing perception does it matter if it is psychoacoustics?




It doesn't necessarily. It all depends on whether the particular individual cares or not. Personally I don't. At least not at the end of the day when I'm simply enjoying music, which is what this is all about in the first place. 

se


----------



## swspiers

mygpuk said:


> Good sirs, how can you speak about which cable is better when i just throw to the recycle bin your whole vision about "high-end"??


 

 I think you have the wrong sirs.  I doubt that anyone in this thread would advocate that cables have any meaningful difference.
  
 These guys put the 'high-end' vision in the recycle bin a long time ago!


----------



## xnor

steve eddy said:


> It doesn't necessarily. It all depends on whether the particular individual cares or not. Personally I don't. At least not at the end of the day when I'm simply enjoying music, which is what this is all about in the first place.


 
 How on earth could you not care as "enthusiast" and manufacturer/seller of cables? I am thoroughly confused.


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> It doesn't necessarily. It all depends on whether the particular individual cares or not. Personally I don't. At least not at the end of the day when I'm simply enjoying music, which is what this is all about in the first place.


 
  
 What have you been listening to lately? I just got word that a new Ry Cooder box set is on its way to me from Amazon.de. Every one of his albums remastered. His stuff was always fun and sounded good. I'm hoping it will be as good as the Joni Mitchell European box set. (Into the Purple Valley is my favorite.)


----------



## bigshot

xnor said:


> How on earth could you not care as "enthusiast" and manufacturer/seller of cables? I am thoroughly confused.


 
  
 My grandma knitted sweaters, but I never saw her wear one.


----------



## Steve Eddy

xnor said:


> How on earth could you not care as "enthusiast" and manufacturer/seller of cables? I am thoroughly confused. :confused_face(1):




Because when it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music, I'm a subjectivist. And in that regard, I only care about what gives me the greatest pleasure, regardless of how it may come about. What's so confusing about that?

se


----------



## swspiers

bigshot said:


> My grandma knitted sweaters, but I never saw her wear one.


 

 Or, "dealers don't use their own stash"


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> I only care about what gives me the greatest pleasure, regardless of how it may come about.


 
  
 Oh man! If that isn't the set up for a dirty joke, I've never heard one!


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> What have you been listening to lately? I just got word that a new Ry Cooder box set is on its way to me from Amazon.de. Every one of his albums remastered. His stuff was always fun and sounded good. I'm hoping it will be as good as the Joni Mitchell European box set. (Into the Purple Valley is my favorite.)




I'm all over the place. Lately it's been Lorde, Yello, Ahmad Jamal, Elvis Costello, Ray Barretto, Robin Thicke, C2C, Poncho Sanchez, Kid Rock...

se


----------



## bigshot

No girls?!


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> My grandma knitted sweaters, but I never saw her wear one.




I use what I make because what I make I did originally for myself. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Oh man! If that isn't the set up for a dirty joke, I've never heard one!




Then why'd you pass it up? I wouldn't have. 

se


----------



## MygpuK

Good day, anyone. Sorry for posting not long before in the same thread. The idea of this post slightly differs.
  
I'm humbly inviting all the sceptic good sirs to develop the idea of (low/medium/high-end placing of head-fi oriented products) objectiveness (the point of the scepticism philosophy) by discussing my threads with the very same main plot.
I would be very-very happy if you just spend some time learning new things in my thread!
 Links are below:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/690441/the-need-of-in-depth-sound-science-objectiveness-intro-to-the-sound-science-wall-of-text-thread
http://www.head-fi.org/t/690471/theorycrafting-the-perfect-amp
  
 Thanks for the attention!


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> No girls?!




Lorde's a girl. And I have some Valerie June, some Regina Carter, some Lisa Marie Presley... but I'm just not real big on the whole female vocalist thing that a lot of people are.

se


----------



## MygpuK

swspiers said:


> I think you have the wrong sirs.  I doubt that anyone in this thread would advocate that cables have any meaningful difference.
> 
> These guys put the 'high-end' vision in the recycle bin a long time ago!



Oh, very nice, but why didn't you CLEAR IT OUT for the community?? Didn't Head-fi do much for you? Or did you have lack of perseverance/will/didactic_skills?

I'm just trying to say I'm going to make everyone know what REAL HIGH-END (Sound science MYTHBUSTING) is and every new "choose of the product" will be adjusted accordingly!! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

If you, good sirs, are interested, the link is in my forum signature below this post.


----------



## bigshot

Are you interested in sound or self promotion? just curious. Ego seems more important than ears around here sometimes.


----------



## swspiers

mygpuk said:


> Oh, very nice, but why didn't you CLEAR IT OUT for the community?? Didn't Head-fi do much for you? Or did you have lack of perseverance/will/didactic_skills?
> 
> I'm just trying to say I'm going to make everyone know what REAL HIGH-END (Sound science MYTHBUSTING) is and every new "choose of the product" will be adjusted accordingly!! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
> 
> If you, good sirs, are interested, the link is in my forum signature below this post.


 

 I still think your motives might be pure.
  
 You may want to read some all of the past posts, and check out the background of some of the participants in this thread.
  
 Humility might serve you well.  I find that it's more useful than my perseverance, force of will, and didactic erudition.


----------



## MygpuK

bigshot said:


> Are you interested in sound or self promotion? just curious. Ego seems more important than ears around here sometimes.



It's a philosophy question, so the answer will be in much volume, but instead I will gain some more respect in your eyes, I suppose.

A person has some principles. By principles I mean RULES. My essential rules are: Truth&Justice. Justice is not always true, like the situation with high-end localization for the community. It's Justice, because head-fi did the analising part, but it ain't Truth, because these analisys where somewhat wrong, because the reviewers had no objective info sources.
I'm the source transmitter from the RU community. You may spit may face and call me jerk as you wish, I won't aggro. I appreciate and defend my ego, where it comes to feelings but I do not respect it, by ego I mean emotions. Emotions shall be personal, if you consider yourself a man, yet you make fake some emotions without lying to get to your objectives. That's called being smart  Because egoism is something which is simply ok in society nowadays. I'm trying to fix that - writing a metaphysics book (true philosophy, before me there was only 1 metaphysic - Aristotel).

I'm driven by my principles, as is any of us. I'm just not paying any attention to negative emotions. Lack of self-respect may be an issue because of which I would like to promote myself. I have no such lack, trust me 

*2SW*: Maybe you didn't control your emotions as you should or you did lack a bit any of the indicated capacities. Optimization is everything and I'm an engineer-programmer ))


----------



## MygpuK

Even the thread's brand "SOUND MYTHBUSTING" is done because I wish people to get interested. If I wish to catch attention, I use marketing strategies, BUT accordingly with my principles: Truth&Justice. It's hard to get it, but still.
I use several kinds of optimization viewing a certain situations from nearly_all possible perspectives. Nearly_all because I'm not uber to know/see/observe/control everything.


----------



## MygpuK

We may say "an inner conflict" regarding the lack of justice in this part is my main reason. From a psycho-analisys perspective.

One of my principles, which was lead by the "emotions" part is:
If you can do smth good for someone(or community), do so, if you like he/she/them.
I luv this forum and it's crew


----------



## ssrock64

I'd encourage everyone to actually head over to his thread; it's an interesting read, if a little incoherent because of language issues and occasional philosophical rambling. I think there is a real point he's attempting to make, though. I'm not saying I'm convinced or anything, but his basic argument comes down to something that this thread has discussed over and over: EQ.


----------



## MygpuK

ssrock64 said:


> I'd encourage everyone to actually head over to his thread; it's an interesting read, if a little incoherent because of language issues and occasional philosophical rambling. I think there is a real point he's attempting to make, though. I'm not saying I'm convinced or anything, but his basic argument comes down to something that this thread has discussed over and over: EQ _of a *perfect* amplifier can do almost everything_


Fixed with your silent permission, sir.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> What have you been listening to lately? I just got word that a new Ry Cooder box set is on its way to me from Amazon.de. Every one of his albums remastered. His stuff was always fun and sounded good. I'm hoping it will be as good as the Joni Mitchell European box set. (Into the Purple Valley is my favorite.)



I suspect that our musical tastes are quite different but the last album to really impress me is Howlin by Jagwar Ma. Loud and noisy though. Somebody that you may well like (and probably know already) is Fiona Apple.


----------



## MygpuK

Good&Skeptic sirs, I would like to inform you that Science&Skepticism thread was oficially overhauled and now KILLS any given SOUND MYTH (!)

I'm proudly presenting you.....
MYTHBUSTING THREAD OVERHAULED!!

http://www.head-fi.org/t/690441/sound-mythbusting-overhauled-objectiveness-only-intro-to-the-sound-science-wall-of-text-thread


----------



## Joe Bloggs

If only it were that easy... *sigh* You certainly did breathe some life into this tumbleweed-strewn part of the forum though


----------



## MygpuK

joe bloggs said:


> If only it were that easy... *sigh* You certainly did breathe some life into this tumbleweed-strewn part of the forum though



Thanks, lol 
I had some skills of diplomacy and marketing before starting the topic, so I know how to "breathe life" and get desired audience interested


----------



## Saren

Reading through this forum has been very interesting for sure. Personally years ago I initially believed in cables, massive amp differences and dac differences - on no more reason than assumption and expectation. Over the last 3 years I have heard many different equipment pieces and cables and had come to realize that I was hearing nothing in the way of major differences that I felt that I needed to spend more money on - of course objectively the differences were not really there anyway most if not all the time. My current amp was only purchased second hand and presented enough power for even the inefficient Hifimans.
  
 I struggle while reading threads a lot of the time, I find it hard not to argue with people who talk about power conditioners and cables as well as things like suggestions to buy 1 grand dacs and such. I almost did yesterday but had to hold back/change my post in order not to start into fighting over something. It is really hard for new people to this community to come here and not be lead down a path to spending inordinate amounts. I'm lucky that I'm not a teenager or young student spending my whole earning on headphone gear, and that I didn't know about all of this as a younger man. Admittedly though I have spent fair amount of headphones themselves.


----------



## krismusic

Money spent on headphones is rarely wasted.


----------



## MygpuK

saren said:


> Reading through this forum has been very interesting for sure. Personally years ago I initially believed in cables, massive amp differences and dac differences - on no more reason than assumption and expectation. Over the last 3 years I have heard many different equipment pieces and cables and had come to realize that I was hearing nothing in the way of major differences that I felt that I needed to spend more money on - of course objectively the differences were not really there anyway most if not all the time. My current amp was only purchased second hand and presented enough power for even the inefficient Hifimans.
> 
> I struggle while reading threads a lot of the time, I find it hard not to argue with people who talk about power conditioners and cables as well as things like suggestions to buy 1 grand dacs and such. I almost did yesterday but had to hold back/change my post in order not to start into fighting over something. It is really hard for new people to this community to come here and not be lead down a path to spending inordinate amounts. I'm lucky that I'm not a teenager or young student spending my whole earning on headphone gear, and that I didn't know about all of this as a younger man. Admittedly though I have spent fair amount of headphones themselves.



Very intriguing point! You MUST argue in order to achieve the great justice - youngsters to not "be sorry for their own wallet". I reject the fact wallet matters, just as you do. In a more precise way, I suppose. I allow people to argue with me in that thread THE WAY THEY WANT TO. I'm not an emotional one to get overwhelmed by feelings and start to quarrel. Conflict is a discuss/argue point which is not at all a quarrel. We are just trying to find the truth. And the truth ALWAYS lies in simple things (yet hard_to_find&study)



krismusic said:


> Money spent on headphones is rarely wasted.



The point is you probably spend half of that many for the same performance.

Have you ever heard of Axelvox/Superlux, good sirs?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

For great justice! 

But I do think somebody set up us the bomb here


----------



## MygpuK

joe bloggs said:


> For great justice!
> 
> But I do think somebody set up us the bomb here



Trust me, the only bomb is in my head.
I know i speak proven truth, but i'm MADE TO develop pedagogical skills in order to BRING THAT to you THROUGH the language barrier....

It's harder than you think....(
If I would be a native english speaker I would already have like 5 followers by just explaining them in detail, using persuasive language. 

I feel I look like an old professor, no one can understand


----------



## krismusic

krismusic said:


> I suspect that our musical tastes are quite different but the last album to really impress me is Howlin by Jagwar Ma. Loud and noisy though. Somebody that you may well like (and probably know already) is Fiona Apple.



BTW. This was in response to Bigshot asking about music. Another big surprise to me is how much I like Paul McCartney's New album.


----------



## miceblue

Oh dear...one of my HD albums. 


I should get the CD equivalent of the album and see how the mastering is on that.


----------



## MygpuK

Inviting all the sirs from the saloon to a related thread (sorry in advance for my somewhat bad english):
Long story short: We create the development basis for a perfect headphone. (regarding how true high-end headphones should be like)
http://www.head-fi.org/t/690818/the-perfect-stereo-headphone-true-high-end


----------



## bigshot

I can't understand anything you post, I'm afraid. Enjoy it, but I can't participate.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Me neither and I want to participate. I recommend at least putting the text into something like MIcrosoft Word and pick out any grammar mistakes. Technical talk gets harder with near gibberish documentation.


----------



## MygpuK

kamijoismyhero said:


> Me neither and I want to participate. I recommend at least putting the text into something like MIcrosoft Word and pick out any grammar mistakes. Technical talk gets harder with near gibberish documentation.





bigshot said:


> I can't understand anything you post, I'm afraid. Enjoy it, but I can't participate.


Fixed: Magister Yoda formulations, Laconicity optimisation, Grammar mistakes.
If the problem persists, tell me in more detail what is "unable to understand".


----------



## miceblue

Hm, speaking of 5.1 systems, how does a stereo headphone playback a 5.1 song? I obtained a few tracks, legally, for free from here:
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

Comparing a 5.1 song to a stereo sound sounds a little different to me with stereo headphones, but nothing too drastic.


----------



## darinf

miceblue said:


> Hm, speaking of 5.1 systems, how does a stereo headphone playback a 5.1 song? I obtained a few tracks, legally, for free from here:
> http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
> 
> Comparing a 5.1 song to a stereo sound sounds a little different to me with stereo headphones, but nothing too drastic.


 
 I assume those clips are meant for people with a 5.1 speaker system to compare. With two channel output like headphones, you probably wouldn't hear any difference since you are probably only listening to the L and R channels of a 5.1 file.
  
 Or I use this to listen to the 5.1 files from that site with headphones: http://www.head-fi.org/t/689299/out-of-your-head-new-virtual-surround-simulator


----------



## MygpuK

darinf said:


> I assume those clips are meant for people with a 5.1 speaker system to compare. With two channel output like headphones, you probably wouldn't hear any difference since you are probably only listening to the L and R channels of a 5.1 file.
> 
> Or I use this to listen to the 5.1 files from that site with headphones.


A PERFECT ANSWER!
Speaking as a scientist:
Stereo CAN NOT create 3D sound because it has objectively 2 points of sound source. in the 3D system (system because the EAR know what 3D is, tested, proven).
So, to "feel true 5.1 music" you shall do:
a) Find it.
b) Compare to 5.1 true high-end.

5.1 ONLY and thus true high-end is:
Roccat Kave 5.1 (60$)
Objectively, IDEAL for Video_perception(dvd&up quality)&Gaming


----------



## Joe Bloggs

mygpuk said:


> A PERFECT ANSWER!
> Speaking as a scientist:
> Stereo CAN NOT create 3D sound because it has objectively 2 points of sound source. in the 3D system (system because the EAR know what 3D is, tested, proven).
> So, to "feel true 5.1 music" you shall do:
> ...




'fraid I don't agree with you there. It's pretty much impossible to make "true" 5.1 headphones (with, what, 3 speakers on each side and a shaker?) with any sort of quality on each driver--not to mention that the resulting soundstage still won't be anything like a true 5.1 speaker system. HRTF virtualization using custom measured HRTFs, e.g. Smyth Realiser, using quality standard single driver headphones, is where it's at.


----------



## MygpuK

joe bloggs said:


> 'fraid I don't agree with you there. It's pretty much impossible to make "true" 5.1 headphones (with, what, 3 speakers on each side and a shaker?) with any sort of quality on each driver--not to mention that the resulting soundstage still won't be anything like a true 5.1 speaker system. HRTF virtualization using custom measured HRTFs, e.g. Smyth Realiser, using quality standard single driver headphones, is where it's at.


Now that's a perfect criticizing.
I agree. For me, true 5.1 headphones HAVE SENSE, because closed headphones mean "somewhat isolating".

I'm listening music THE LOUD WAY 
So, I don't wish bothering my neighbours.


----------



## bigshot

mygpuk said:


> Fixed: Magister Yoda formulations, Laconicity optimisation, Grammar mistakes.
> If the problem persists, tell me in more detail what is "unable to understand".


 
  
 I already told you. You aren't organizing your thoughts so other people can follow them. It has nothing to do with grammar or language. Your posts are a chore to decipher, so I don't.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> I already told you. You aren't organizing your thoughts so other people can follow them. It has nothing to do with grammar or language. Your posts are a chore to decipher, so I don't.



I'm afraid I agree. Either language barrier or a very incoherent mind. Or both!


----------



## xnor

miceblue said:


> Oh dear...one of my HD albums.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Unfortunately, HD doesn't mean anything in terms of sound quality. It can be mastered better, but doesn't have to be.
 When the mastering engineer gets a messed up mix to begin with ...
  


miceblue said:


> Hm, speaking of 5.1 systems, how does a stereo headphone playback a 5.1 song?


 
 It doesn't. The 5.1 will be mixed down to 2.0 for playback on a stereo headphone.


----------



## miceblue

Yeah, I meant HD as in the 24/48 album from HD Tracks. XD

Interesting to know about downmixing. That being said, what does the downmixing? The DAC, or the software playing the music?


[rule]
Why is it that people claim that listening to planar magnetic headphones from speaker taps magically transforms the sound quality? I don't even know what speaker taps are. >_>


----------



## darinf

miceblue said:


> Interesting to know about downmixing. That being said, what does the downmixing? The DAC, or the software playing the music?


 
 Generally, DAC's don't do any down-mixing. Some media player software like JRiver Media Center will down-mix multi-channel to 2 channel, but it's literally just combining/mixing the other channels into the left and right channels.
  
My software also "converts" 5.1 or 7.1 down to two channels, but unlike a straight mix, my software makes it sound like you are really listening to 6 or 8 speakers in a room to give you the full 5.1 or 7.1 surround experience. I think it's a great way to experience 5.1 or 7.1 without having to use an actual home theater speaker setup. Then you can try those multi-channel samples that you posted a link to earlier and hear them as  5.1 rather than just the L and R channels. Of course there's movies too even if you don't like multi-channel music.


----------



## MygpuK

joe bloggs said:


> Does anyone have the link to the study where they EQed different headphones to sound like each other and asked listeners to grade their sound quality? The result being that when frequency responses were made similar sound quality became similar as well?


That's called RAA:
Reference audio analisys.

Human ears are "emulated" using pro level equipment for studies.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Anyone still feel like posting here after the Dalai Lama from hell ran over this place?


----------



## xnor




----------



## miceblue

Whaaat?

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQlrSvnG3dg[/video]


That's really scary D:


----------



## Taowolf51

miceblue said:


> Why is it that people claim that listening to planar magnetic headphones from speaker taps magically transforms the sound quality? I don't even know what speaker taps are. >_>


 
  
 Speaker taps are the outputs of a speaker power amp. Basically, the part of a speaker amp you usually connect speakers to, you connect a headphone to.


----------



## xnor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_illusion


----------



## ssrock64

joe bloggs said:


> Anyone still feel like posting here after the Dalai Lama from hell ran over this place?


 
 Did he just disappear, or is he still at it in another thread?


----------



## xnor

Judging by the "banned" under his name I doubt that.


----------



## ssrock64

xnor said:


> Judging by the "banned" under his name I doubt that.


 
 That was my thought right after posting, but I had Thanksgiving things to do so I forgot to check.


----------



## miceblue

taowolf51 said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > [rule]
> ...



Ah, mmk.
Still, I see people saying headphones "transform" when hooked up to speaker taps.

Perhaps the extra power "fus ro dah'd" their eardrums.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VGDhGsYoSA[/video]






xnor said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_illusion



Nice! I didn't know binaural beats were considered an auditory illusion.


----------



## Taowolf51

miceblue said:


> Ah, mmk.
> Still, I see people saying headphones "transform" when hooked up to speaker taps.


 
  
 I noticed a pretty decent difference when I tried my speaker amp, but that's partially because my current headphone amp doesn't meet even half Audeze's 1w into 60 ohm minimum.
  
 And it wouldn't be Head-Fi without hyperbole. Though if the Mini-X performs like my speaker amp, it's an excellent option for the price.
  
 EDIT: Confused two thoughts and smashed them together into one sentence. Fixed.


----------



## xnor

Without precise level matching you cannot compare two amps. The louder one, which is presumably the power amp, will always be perceived as better sounding.


----------



## Taowolf51

I did quite a lot of fiddling with the volume, high, low, and medium volume listening over the course of a couple days and each result was the same. It isn't foolproof, but the chances of me setting the speaker amp louder each time for at least a dozen testing periods with different volume tests within each testing period is small enough for me to consider my personal preference to be the speaker amp.


----------



## xnor

A better comparison would be actually measuring the volume to be equal and switching back and forth between the amps.
  
 Well the next questions would be why do they sound different (or sound at all) and how (technically).


----------



## miceblue

And are the same differences in sound heard with easy to drive headphones? Meaning it's likely a characteristic sound of the amps themselves, and not necessarily because one is driven by the speaker amp, and the other isn't.


----------



## Taowolf51

xnor said:


> A better comparison would be actually measuring the volume to be equal and switching back and forth between the amps.
> 
> Well the next questions would be why do they sound different (or sound at all) and how (technically).


 
  
 Of course, though I don't have the equipment to do that. I wish I did, it would make doing proper comparisons much easier.
  
 The two amps I was testing were the Matrix M-Stage and the Emotiva XPA-200. The XPA-200 has more bass, deeper bass (perhaps a misinterpretation from or a result of the increased bass response), and highs that I can listen to for longer at louder volumes (less emphasized). I noticed the M-Stage had treble that was slightly uncomfortable to listen to after moderate periods of time, and my first impulse was to turn down the volume. This is interesting because if you ask most people, the M-Stage is the one with reduced highs and increased bass response, while the Emotiva is a "bright" amp. I frequently listened to a song I use to test equipment, The Bridgeport Run by The Flashbulb. It's excellent for testing specific aspects of a headphone such as transient response and detail. I noticed a more exaggerated (whether it was technically accurate I can't say, since it's electronic music) dynamic range as well as faster transient response (leading to the "punchy" type sound). I also was able to better distinguish the individual noises in the song, it's a very difficult song for most headphones to reproduce because it's just a ton of varied noises on top of each other with wild swings in volume and duration, which usually end up blending together in gear that doesn't have the ability to properly reproduce it. Essentially, it sounded "clearer", and the noises did not blend together as much with the XPA-200.
  
 As for why, because I don't have the equipment to do proper measurements and official measurements can be scarce and often incorrect, I don't think I have enough information to say. The only thing I am willing to say is that there is a possibility that during dynamic peaks, I am using enough power to noticeably increase distortion on the M-Stage during those peaks. This is often incorrectly interpreted as sounding "loud" and could explain why I am able to comfortably listen to the XPA-200 at a higher volume, why the M-Stage is difficult to listen to at higher volumes, and why my impulse is to lower the volume on the M-Stage and not on the XPA-200.
  


miceblue said:


> And are the same differences in sound heard with easy to drive headphones? Meaning it's likely a characteristic sound of the amps themselves, and not necessarily because one is driven by the speaker amp, and the other isn't.


  
 Unfortunately, the only other headphones I have to test are the Denon D7000, which are 25 ohm and 108db/mW and I'm not willing to power them with a 150w speaker amp, sorry.
  
 I will say, though, that I love the way the D7000's sound on the M-Stage.


----------



## stv014

taowolf51 said:


> Of course, though I don't have the equipment to do that. I wish I did, it would make doing proper comparisons much easier.


 
   
For level matching, a simple $10-20 DMM is enough. Or even a sound card line input (available on any recent PC motherboard), but you need to be very careful with a speaker amp, and it must have a common ground for the input and both outputs (it cannot be bridged). Also, you should preferably make the comparison blind, since you already expect the speaker amp to sound better.


----------



## swspiers

miceblue said:


> Ah, mmk.
> Still, I see people saying headphones "transform" when hooked up to speaker taps.
> 
> Perhaps the extra power "fus ro dah'd" their eardrums. Nice! I didn't know binaural beats were considered an auditory illusion.


 
 Actually, speaker taps do make my headphones transform.
  
 The need to spend outrageous amounts of money on amps of  dubious merit seems to magically disappear!


----------



## xnor

Quote:


taowolf51 said:


> Unfortunately, the only other headphones I have to test are the Denon D7000, which are 25 ohm and 108db/mW and I'm not willing to power them with a 150w speaker amp, sorry.


 
  
 What headphones do you use, LCD2? Difference in sensitivity between the LCD2 and AH-D2000 is about 7 dB.


----------



## Taowolf51

xnor said:


> Quote:
> 
> What headphones do you use, LCD2? Difference in sensitivity between the LCD2 and AH-D2000 is about 7 dB.


 
 The difference in sensitivity between the LCD-2 and the D7000 is 18db/mW (90 vs 108). The maximum power into 60 ohms (LCD-2) would be about 20w, while into 25 ohms (D7000) it would be about 48w. Excluding the dangers of it, the volume control may be too sensitive, and the noise floor too high for a proper comparison.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

taowolf51 said:


> The difference in sensitivity between the LCD-2 and the D7000 is 18db/mW (90 vs 108). The maximum power into 60 ohms (LCD-2) would be about 20w, while into 25 ohms (D7000) it would be about 48w. Excluding the dangers of it, the volume control may be too sensitive, and the noise floor too high for a proper comparison.




Power sensitivity and voltage sensitivity are two different matters. It was the difference in the latter that xnor was quoting, and that you have to worry about in the sense of blowing up your headphones.


----------



## Taowolf51

joe bloggs said:


> Power sensitivity and voltage sensitivity are two different matters. It was the difference in the latter that xnor was quoting, and that you have to worry about in the sense of blowing up your headphones.


 
  
 That makes more sense, I thought he was talking about power sensitivity.
  
 I tried plugging the D7000's into the amp, and my fears about the noise floor were right. The noise floor is very audible with the D7000, about conversational level. I don't think I could make an appropriate comparison with so much noise.


----------



## xnor

I am not comparing the specs but real measurement data, and sensitivity specified for 1 mW doesn't help here. dB SPL @ 1V is the way to go.
  
 Btw, the LCD2 only needs a couple of milliwatts to produce blaring loud sound so I'm not sure why you would drive them with a power amp.


----------



## Taowolf51

xnor said:


> I am not comparing the specs but real measurement data, and sensitivity specified for 1 mW doesn't help here. dB SPL @ 1V is the way to go.
> 
> Btw, the LCD2 only needs a couple of milliwatts to produce blaring loud sound so I'm not sure why you would drive them with a power amp.


 
  
 Makes sense, though still, considering how loud the noise floor is with the D7000's, I'm not quite sure how much of a help or how accurate a comparison would be.
  
 Honestly? Because I like the way it sounds more than the M-Stage. I really couldn't care less about anything else. It also doesn't cost me an ungodly amount of money like most other amps ($30 for the converter so far).


----------



## miceblue

Say you needed music to reach a peak SPL of 120 dB, the LCD-2.2 requires 0.87 mW of power at 58 Ω to reach 90 dB SPL according to Innerfidelity's measurements.

A +3 dB SPL gain equates to doubling the required power. 

To reach 120 dB SPL, you double the power 10 times.
120 dB SPL - 90 dB SPL = 30 dB SPL
30 dB SPL / 3 dB SPL/double of power = 10 doubles of power

0.87 mW * 2^10 = 890.88 mW at 58 Ω


How about 115 dB SPL? 
115 dB SPL - 90 dB SPL = 25 dB SPL
25 dB SPL / 3 dB SPL/double of power = 8.333 doubles of power

0.87 * 2^8.333 = 280.61 mW at 58 Ω


----------



## Taowolf51

miceblue said:


> Say you needed music to reach a peak SPL of 120 dB, the LCD-2.2 requires 0.87 mW of power at 58 Ω to reach 90 dB SPL according to Innerfidelity's measurements.
> 
> A +3 dB SPL gain equates to doubling the required power.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I know.


----------



## ssrock64

Anyone heard the new Schiit Vali yet? Impressions?


----------



## miceblue

ssrock64 said:


> Anyone heard the new Schiit Vali yet? Impressions?



Someone, or two, might bring one to the next local Head-Fi meet. I'm skeptical, but I've got the Objective 2 at hand for comparisons.


----------



## ssrock64

miceblue said:


> Someone, or two, might bring one to the next local Head-Fi meet. I'm skeptical, but I've got the Objective 2 at hand for comparisons.


 
 That's precisely the comparison I want to hear; I'll hold you to that duty if you get the chance.
  
 I've heard all the hype, but all the talk of microphonics and hiss is quite concerning.


----------



## miceblue

When an amp has a gain stated in decibels, how is that translated into the more typical gain specification from an engineering standpoint?

i.e. gain = output voltage of amplifier / input voltage of amplifier


----------



## Steve Eddy

miceblue said:


> When an amp has a gain stated in decibels, how is that translated into the more typical gain specification from an engineering standpoint?
> 
> i.e. gain = output voltage of amplifier / input voltage of amplifier




I just divide decibels by 20 and then take 10 to the power of that result.

se


----------



## miceblue

steve eddy said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > When an amp has a gain stated in decibels, how is that translated into the more typical gain specification from an engineering standpoint?
> ...



Ah mmk. Thanks!

Oh wait, that makes sense.

dB = 20 * log_10(V_out / V_in)


----------



## Steve Eddy

miceblue said:


> Ah mmk. Thanks!
> 
> Oh wait, that makes sense.
> 
> dB = 20 * log_10(V_out / V_in)




Yup. 

se


----------



## SanjiWatsuki

Kind of curious where you guys believe the voltage requirements for a pair of headphones should be for suggesting amps.
  
 Up to now, I've always been basing it off 110dB as a reasonable SPL cap and basing my voltage calcs based on that.
  
 Thinking about it, though, I feel like it isn't a safe estimate for the total voltage headroom required for audiophiles, if only for the ReplayGain with no pre-amp wrinkle. If you've got dynamic classical pieces which get RG of very low or even positive values, pre-amping probably isn't the best idea.
  
 The largest negative track gain in my library is -15.64dB. Let's call -16dB as a reasonable floor.
  
 Doesn't that make it more logical to set the rule of thumb around 120-125dB or so to account for ReplayGain? It seems like where the actual "110dB Rule of Thumb" ends up after accounting for ReplayGain fighting with the loudness war.
  
 Obviously, this isn't accounting for that you shouldn't be listening that loud anyway, but some people do like to listen loud, and I have to take that into consideration when giving amp recommendations to people.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *SanjiWatsuki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Doesn't that make it more logical to set the rule of thumb around 120-125dB or so to account for ReplayGain? It seems like where the actual "110dB Rule of Thumb" ends up after accounting for ReplayGain fighting with the loudness war.


 
  
 This problem is at least partly solved by the amp having excess gain, or a gain switch that makes excess gain possible for unusually quiet input. In other words, attenuation by ReplayGain is more of a gain than a power issue.
  
 I am not sure if listening to dynamically compressed music (which is what is attenuated the most by ReplayGain) at 110 dB SPL is a great idea, though. It is generally best not to exceed 85-90 dB average, and that is what gives 110 dB peaks with the most dynamic tracks. However, not all people have the same preferences, and for that reason, there is no single "one size that fits all" power requirement for any headphone. One person's "underpowered" amplifier can in fact be plenty enough for another.


----------



## SanjiWatsuki

stv014 said:


> This problem is at least partly solved by the amp having excess gain, or a gain switch that makes excess gain possible for unusually quiet input. In other words, attenuation by ReplayGain is more of a gain than a power issue.
> 
> I am not sure if listening to dynamically compressed music (which is what is attenuated the most by ReplayGain) at 110 dB SPL is a great idea, though. It is generally best not to exceed 85-90 dB average, and that is what gives 110 dB peaks with the most dynamic tracks. However, not all people have the same preferences, and for that reason, there is no single "one size that fits all" power requirement for any headphone. One person's "underpowered" amplifier can in fact be plenty enough for another.


 
 Good point. I hadn't considered excess gain. I suppose with excess gain in mind, it works out.


----------



## xnor

In http://www.head-fi.org/t/668238/headphones-sensitivity-impedance-required-v-i-p-amplifier-gain, if you scroll to below the table you can see what compression does.
  
 The heavily compressed metal track has an average perceived loudness of about 94 dB SPL which is only 6 dB lower than the peaks. The classical track has an average of about 80 dB, with 20 dB peaks.
 Assuming the classical track meets your ReplayGain target (+/- 0 dB), the metal track needs to be attenuated by 14 dB to be equally loud on average (94-14=80 dB).
  
 Since this uses a 110 dB SPL target _without _excess gain and volume set to -10 dB (about 2 pm) you could increase the volume to max to reach an average of 90 dB SPL with peaks reaching 96 / 110 dB SPL. Not bad considering no excess gain ... and 85 dB SPL being considered "safe" for 8h per day.


----------



## krismusic

Sorry to butt in. 
I've recently been using the Digiziod Zo bass enhancer with good results. 
However I looked on their website at Technical info. 
Smells like the worst kind of Hi Fi BS to me.
I would be very grateful if someone who knows what they are talking about would have a look at it for me. http://www.digizoid.com/index.php?p=tech


----------



## Achmedisdead

krismusic said:


> Sorry to butt in.
> I've recently been using the Digiziod Zo bass enhancer with good results.
> However I looked on their website at Technical info.
> Smells like the worst kind of Hi Fi BS to me.
> I would be very grateful if someone who knows what they are talking about would have a look at it for me. http://www.digizoid.com/index.php?p=tech


 
  
 I don't worry about all that stuff. If it sounds good to you, then who cares what they are claiming? It's all marketing BS.  I have a Digizoid and I don't always use it, but it is fun to use sometimes. I'm sure the audiophile crowd wouldn't approve
 of the ZO, and that's fine...I still like it.


----------



## krismusic

achmedisdead said:


> I don't worry about all that stuff. If it sounds good to you, then who cares what they are claiming? It's all marketing BS.  I have a Digizoid and I don't always use it, but it is fun to use sometimes. I'm sure the audiophile crowd wouldn't approve
> of the ZO, and that's fine...I still like it.



I totally agree but it seems a shame that they come out with that stuff and I would love to know how it really works. 
I'm partly interested as I am trying to decide whether the device is a true improvement or a clever cheat. It could be said that it doesn't matter but I haven't come this far in a quest for SQ to be suckered! Thanks for the reply BTW.


----------



## xnor

Does it really have an expander or is it just an amp with bass boost? Anyway, yes, the stuff on their website is ...


----------



## krismusic

xnor said:


> Does it really have an expander or is it just an amp with bass boost? Anyway, yes, the stuff on their website is ...


 
 I think it is cleverer than just a bass boost. Seems to incrementally increase the frequencies as they go lower or something like that.Does not mask the midrange and treble retains good separation.


----------



## xnor

krismusic said:


> I think it is cleverer than just a bass boost. Seems to incrementally increase the frequencies as they go lower or something like that.Does not mask the midrange and treble retains good separation.


 
 Yeah that's a normal bass boost with a low center frequency. The rising slope is of course going to counter-act the natural roll-off of your headphones and hearing.
  
 I really doubt that they have an expander in there. Just boosting the sub-bass will make the waveform look "expanded" as shown on their tech page.
  
  
 edit:

  
 So their "5x" more bass claim is almost true (= +14 dB).


----------



## krismusic

xnor said:


> Yeah that's a normal bass boost with a low center frequency. The rising slope is of course going to counter-act the natural roll-off of your headphones and hearing.
> 
> I really doubt that they have an expander in there. Just boosting the sub-bass will make the waveform look "expanded" as shown on their tech page.
> 
> ...



Thanks xnor. So that is really all it is doing. The effect makes my ACS T15's much more enjoyable. They are bass light and thin sounding normally. I guess it comes down to whether you like accurate or enjoyable?!


----------



## bigshot

If your headphones normally don't have much bass, adding some is making them more balanced. EQ corrects for imbalances and makes the response more accurate.


----------



## miceblue

I haven't looked into this at all, but I recently [well a few months ago] purchased a Japanese album and it was labeled as "HQCD" or "HiQuality Compact Disc."

http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/popular_formats/HQCD/


> HQCD (HiQualityCD) format achieves high quality audio through the use of a polycarbonate plastic with improved transparency derived from LCD display manufacturing technologies enabling more accurate reading of the CD data. In addition, a special alloy is used as the material of the reflective layer instead of the standard aluminum. HQCD format CDs are fully compatible with standard CD players.




http://www.hqcd.jp/eng.html


Any thoughts on this? I haven't had time to open the album yet so I can't say anything about its sound.


----------



## bigshot

They left off one circle... The one that indicates the limits of human perception, which would fit neatly inside the CD circle.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> If your headphones normally don't have much bass, adding some is making them more balanced. EQ corrects for imbalances and makes the response more accurate.


 
 Trouble is, when I start adding stuff I am not sure what I am aiming for. I reckon though that a lot of headphones are accurate in a few areas.
 To be truly accurate across the whole range is rare.Usually also expensive! This little gadget offers a cheap option to ameliorate the shortcomings of a good pair of quality 'phones.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> They left off one circle... The one that indicates the limits of human perception, which would fit neatly inside the CD circle.


----------



## bigshot

krismusic said:


> Trouble is, when I start adding stuff I am not sure what I am aiming for.


 
  
 Music with acoustic instruments, rather than electronic give you a better idea of what it should sound like. Well recorded classical music is the best because it covers the full frequency spectrum and it's easier to spot bumps and dips than rock music.


----------



## krismusic

Yes. Real instruments. Who knows how some electronic bleep is supposed to sound?!
It's still very mood dependant though IME. One days dynamic is another days overblown. 
This is probably getting rather off topic though. 
I think the Zo/ACS is a good stopgap until I can afford to try another IEM. 
As to my original enquiry I don't know why Zo's people feel the need to puff up a good product with marketing BS. Thanks for the input.


----------



## Copperears

miceblue said:


> I haven't looked into this at all, but I recently [well a few months ago] purchased a Japanese album and it was labeled as "HQCD" or "HiQuality Compact Disc."
> 
> http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/popular_formats/HQCD/
> 
> ...




Yet again..... cleaner 1s and 0s!

You know how when a bit is not quite off, there's a bit of on- ness to it, or when it's on, you can sense the threat of impending off? Stressful!

This fixes that.

You might also want to consider a really expensive DAC and titanium cables, to remove any lingering doubts in your system as to whether a 1 is a 1 or a 0 is a 0; binary arithmetic can be hard for computers.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## xnor

Since this "HQCD" plays in any CD player and does not seem to have any special extra layers it just contains Redbook audio. Its audio performance is therefore determined by 44.1 kHz, 16 bits per sample, not the medium itself.


----------



## Muinarc

xnor said:


> Since this "HQCD" plays in any CD player and does not seem to have any special extra layers it just contains Redbook audio. Its audio performance is therefore determined by 44.1 kHz, 16 bits per sample, not the medium itself.



 


HDCD required a specific decoder however correct? I had an Arcam HDCD-compatible player once, I don't think it made much difference hitting the "HDCD button" but it seemd to sound different.


----------



## xnor

muinarc said:


> HDCD required a specific decoder however correct? I had an Arcam HDCD-compatible player once, I don't think it made much difference hitting the "HDCD button" but it seemd to sound different.


 
 H*D*CD is something different than "H*Q*CD".
 And HDCD seems to be pretty much dead.


----------



## Muinarc

xnor said:


> H*D*CD is something different than "H*Q*CD".
> And HDCD seems to be pretty much dead.



 


Yeah I know that, I was just trying to verify that HDCD, unlike this HQCD, might have actually made (or had the possibility of making) a difference to perceived sound quality.


----------



## Copperears

It does, I have a few HDCD discs, and they are slightly "sweeter/warmer" than standard CD. I don't see it as any improvement in accuracy, it really is just application of a global sound sweetening processing onto the disc. Works for certain types of music, gets old if you hear it all the time, like any kind of globally-generated coloration.


----------



## krismusic

What do you mean by "global sound"?


----------



## ssrock64

copperears said:


> It does, I have a few HDCD discs, and they are slightly "sweeter/warmer" than standard CD. I don't see it as any improvement in accuracy, it really is just application of a global sound sweetening processing onto the disc. Works for certain types of music, gets old if you hear it all the time, like any kind of globally-generated coloration.


 
 That's actually quite disappointing to hear. I'm glad I never invested in HDCD gear, then.
  
 Would you describe it as a sort of set-in-stone EQ, then?


----------



## Copperears

This will give you all the info you need on HDCD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Definition_Compatible_Digital

Hope that helps!


----------



## krismusic

krismusic said:


> What do you mean by "global sound"?



Ah. Got it. Universal.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

copperears said:


> It does, I have a few HDCD discs, and they are slightly "sweeter/warmer" than standard CD. I don't see it as any improvement in accuracy, it really is just application of a global sound sweetening processing onto the disc. Works for certain types of music, gets old if you hear it all the time, like any kind of globally-generated coloration.




Are you playing them on a HDCD-capable player? I don't think it's equivalent to global EQ unless the changes introduced by HDCD encoding are played back on a non-HDCD-capable player. Looking at the article I get the impression that the added detail of HDCD properly decoded may not be audible (as with any 16+bit process) but the distortion introduced by not decoding the HDCD may be more audible.


----------



## Copperears

Right, I think it had more to do with distortion reduction, but the results I vaguely recall were supposed to sound "sweeter" as a result. One of the early experiments in trying to "improve" 16-bit/44kHz playback, which doesn't need improvement. 

At the time, the problem was more one of understanding how to properly use dynamic range during recording and engineering masters, without risking the introduction of harsh digital distortion in the recording process when input would go over-limit (in analogue recording, hitting that limit and actually going past it was a kind of sweetening effect, as it would introduce a kind of distortion that was considered pleasing; recording engineers used to going into the red zone continued to do so in the early days of digital, with unhappy results).

The thinking behind HDCD seems to be that you basically provide a decoder that allows a "20-bit" recording to get decoded and played back at "16-bit" without being affected by the then-typical-process of bit reduction during mastering -- kind of extending the mastering function to a chip in a player, something like that.

All ultimately just seemed like bottlefly madness to me. I know I'm not being highly accurate in my description.


----------



## jcx

HDCD are/were made with dynamic range compression and uses dither with a special subcode embedded in it that controls filtering and a "expander"
  
 the dynamic range compression is mild and quite listenable without the HDCD processor - as a design goal
  
 the HDCD reciever chip/sw also upsamples allowing "room" for a few different digital filter characteristics - I don't know if this feature was often used
  
  
 likely the HDCD processing tools were only bought and used by studios/engineers committed to superior mastering practices in the 1st place


----------



## miceblue

What...in the world is a Super High Material Compact Disc??


----------



## xnor

I guess a normal CD. But the marketing department will tell you that it's made from unobtanium and polished with tears of the last unicorn, to improve storage quality of bits ... 101110 becomes 101110. Don't you see how much clearer the latter is?


----------



## ssrock64

miceblue said:


> What...in the world is a Super High Material Compact Disc??


 
 Can anybody who reads Japanese figure out what the website listed says about it?


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

ssrock64 said:


> Can anybody who reads Japanese figure out what the website listed says about it?


 
http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/popular_formats/SHM-CD/


----------



## ssrock64

kamijoismyhero said:


> http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/popular_formats/SHM-CD/


 
 Today in _things I should've done before somebody else did it for me_...


----------



## miceblue

xnor said:


> I guess a normal CD. *But the marketing department will tell you that it's made from unobtanium and polished with tears of the last unicorn, to improve storage quality of bits... 101110 becomes 101110. Don't you see how much clearer the latter is?
> *


*



kamijoismyhero said:





ssrock64 said:



			 
Can anybody who reads Japanese figure out what the website listed says about it?
		
Click to expand...


http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/popular_formats/SHM-CD/

Click to expand...





			enhanced audio quality through the use of a special polycarbonate plastic
...
SHM-CDs feature improved transparency on the data side of the disc, allowing for more accurate reading of CD data by the CD player laser head
		
Click to expand...



Now whenever I read that, I read "Shake My Head-CD"*


----------



## xnor

It really means Super High Material? What kind of lame abbreviation is that?
  
 When I read "shm" I think of shared memory.


----------



## miceblue

When analyzing a song's spectral content, and there seems to be a lot of high-frequency sounds at a 22 kHz cutoff (from a Red Book standard album), what does that mean?

From my experience, Japanese rock music, and I suppose many other rock genres, seems to have this high-frequency sudden cutoff.


A drumset's cymbals contribute to the high frequencies, but to have so much energy at the 22 kHz cutoff seems odd to me. Could it be due to the recording microphone clipping? Was the song's treble boosted during the mixing and/or mastering process?

Evidently by the screenshot, clipping within the song exists, and it has a Dynamic Range rating of 5, which seems about right for today's rock music I think.

Speaking of which, how is it possible for heavier rock genres to have a higher dynamic range? I guess I need to look into the concept of dynamic range more in depth, but with heavier rock genres, the instruments are pretty much constantly being hit/strummed, so I can't really see how a high dynamic range could be obtained for this music genre in the first place.

This Japanese art rock song from 1998 looks better in the treble region, relatively speaking. Ironically it sounds a little more realistic to me since it has the kind of reverberation effect typical of a live album, but the Dynamic Range rating is only 4.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Joe Bloggs

You're zooming in on just 18kHz-22kHz. If you look at a conventional scale, from 0-22kHz, you'd probably see a natural rolloff from the bass to the treble as usual?


----------



## krismusic

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this question. Am I right in thinking that a BA will not reproduce a frequency that it is not capable of whereas a dynamic driver will try and distort?


----------



## xnor

Both will try reproducing the frequency, both will fail producing the "requested" SPL.


This of course means high distortion if you (try to) boost the SPL to the requested level.. but the harmonics will be outside the hearing range anyway.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

xnor said:


> Both will try reproducing the frequency, both will fail producing the "requested" SPL.
> 
> 
> This of course means high distortion if you (try to) boost the SPL to the requested level.. but the harmonics will be outside the hearing range anyway.




Only if you're talking about treble. If you try to boost bass outside the drivers' capability the distortion is very much audible


----------



## miceblue

Balanced vs unbalanced audio gear. What are your guys' thoughts on it?

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3oaR6tPKhk[/video]


Balanced seems to be a popular option here with more expensive gear.


----------



## krismusic

xnor said:


> Both will try reproducing the frequency, both will fail producing the "requested" SPL.
> 
> 
> This of course means high distortion if you (try to) boost the SPL to the requested level.. but the harmonics will be outside the hearing range anyway.


I ask because I am using ACS T15's with the Digizoid at the moment. Playing a piece of music that I know well with a lot of sub bass. 
When the bass drops it goes down so low then just disappears. No sign of distress just nothing. I know from other systems that there is a lot more on the recording. Where has that energy gone? In a dynamic driver It would presumably turn to heat.


----------



## xnor

Oh yes I was talking about treble roll-off, since it's common with BA in-ears at around 16 kHz.
  
  
 At the lower end, I don't see why BAs would be any different. The exception is of course an integrated high-pass filter, that "blocks" very low frequencies.


----------



## swspiers

miceblue said:


> Balanced vs unbalanced audio gear. What are your guys' thoughts on it?
> 
> 
> Balanced seems to be a popular option here with more expensive gear.


 
 I like balanced because it looks cooler.  I have never detected a difference between balanced and SE, unless I am dealing with massive power or long runs of cable.  This is not likely for me to come across in headphone equipment.
  
 Regardless, I like it, but only for the aesthetics.  As goofy as that is...


----------



## xnor

miceblue said:


> Balanced seems to be a popular option here with more expensive gear.


 
 Balanced e.g. makes sense with long cable runs if you have mics at the other end.
  
 I don't think most gear around here is truly balanced but bridged.
  
 Btw, balanced doesn't require cold wire carrying the inverted hot signal (so called differential signaling).


----------



## krismusic

I am a bit baffled as to the specs given on my ACS T15 IEM's. ACS quote 16Hz to 20kHz (but no dB value). On the packaging there is this graph. http://iahpt.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/review-acs-t15-the-analytic-dwarf/
Which seems to cut off between 50Hz and 10Khz. 
What can be extrapolated from this information?


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> I am a bit baffled as to the specs given on my ACS T15 IEM's. ACS quote 16Hz to 20kHz (but no dB value). On the packaging there is this graph. http://iahpt.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/review-acs-t15-the-analytic-dwarf/
> Which seems to cut off between 50Hz and 10Khz.
> What can be extrapolated from this information?


 
 there is as usual in audio, no official rule that forces the brands to define the frequency range the same way. I usually don't even look at those values. for some the limit is a few db drop, for some it's as long as there is some kind of signal.
 from what I have owned, dynamic drivers tended to have a wider operational range.


----------



## krismusic

If it was some other company I wouldn't be surprised but ACS dealing with musicians and technicians I am very suprised that if they give information they do not make it useful!


----------



## xnor

Low end seems to extends relatively flat, but at the high end all bets are off.


----------



## krismusic

xnor said:


> Low end seems to extends relatively flat, but at the high end all bets are off.


 
 Hi xnor. Do you know why the graph is cut off at both ends?


----------



## miceblue

Frequency responses:
20 Hz - 20 kHz

±20 dB 

No but really, measuring equipment tends to be least accurate at the two extremes of the audio spectrum I believe.


----------



## xnor

My guess is because the graph appears flatter by not including the roll-off on the frequency extremes, or because the measurement system isn't very reliable <50 and >10k Hz.
  
 The standard "20 Hz - 20 kHz" range specification is completely meaningless. As miceblue said it could easily be +-20 dB.


----------



## krismusic

Hmmm. AFAIK any meaningful FR should be given +or- 3dB if it is to be a useful measurement. I am particularly interested as I am using these with the Digizoid. It sounds great but there is something about the bass that is bugging me. I am curious as to how much extension I am really hearing. I think I will email ACS and ask them what dB that FR is measured at. The graph seems to me to be as much use as a chocolate tea pot!


----------



## xnor

krismusic said:


> The graph seems to me to be as much use as a chocolate tea pot!


 
  
 Mhhhmm yummie. I want one.


----------



## krismusic

xnor said:


> Mhhhmm yummie. I want one.


----------



## krismusic

Can someone enlighten me? I cannot find an answer on the net. What does +or- dB actually mean?


----------



## xnor

Decibel is a logarithmic "helper unit" that describes a ratio of power or field quantities (such as sound pressure, voltages etc.).
 Logarithmic means that even huge ratios can be described with relatively small decibel numbers.
  
 Examples:
 You put 1V into an amp and measure a max output of 5V:
  
 5V / 1V = gain of 5x
  
 20*log10(5) = gain of +14 dB
  
  
  
 You put 1V into an amp and the max output is 0.1V (a tenth):
  
 0.1/1 = gain of 0.1x
  
 20*log10(0.1) = gain of -20 dB
  
  
 As you can see, as soon as the gain factor is lower than 1x you get negative dB. For power you need to use *10**log10(ratio).
  
  
 Now if some specs say 20 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 3 dB this means that in the whole range the frequency response can vary by 3 dB up or down.
 +/- 10 dB is *perceived *as twice/half as loud.
  
 It gets more confusing since above numbers are completely relative, sometimes written as dBr. There are some common dB units that have a reference, such as dB SPL (reference is a sound pressure of 20 µPa), dBV (reference is 1 V) etc.


----------



## krismusic

That's a brilliant explanation xnor. Thank you very much indeed. I will now stare at it until I understand it. Couldn't be put much clearer. I'll get it! The - value was puzzling me and I now at least see what that represents.


----------



## Steve Eddy

xnor said:


> Decibel is a logarithmic "helper unit" that describes a ratio of power or field quantities (such as sound pressure, voltages etc.).
> Logarithmic means that even huge ratios can be described with relatively small decibel numbers.
> 
> Examples:
> ...




Uh... What was that middle part again? 

se


----------



## xnor

Some completely random examples with voltage gain and how to convert it into dB.


----------



## Steve Eddy

xnor said:


> Some completely random examples with voltage gain and how to convert it into dB.




No no, just being a smartass. It's a cliche line from Kevin Klein's character, Otto, in the film A Fish Called Wanda.

se


----------



## kalston

A great film


----------



## miceblue

joe bloggs said:


> You're zooming in on just 18kHz-22kHz. If you look at a conventional scale, from 0-22kHz, you'd probably see a natural rolloff from the bass to the treble as usual?



It's hard to tell with Audacity.

Maybe?


[rule]
Okay, so I'm trying to volume-match two cables from a source with a 1 kHz sine wave playing from the source (sine wave was generated with Audacity) at a set volume. How exactly do I do that?
Cable A's impedance measurement


Cable B's impedance measurement


Can Ohm's Law be applied here?
V = IR
If V is from the source, it should be constant, R is altered, so the current should be changing? The multimeter I was using couldn't measure current.

Anyway, I decided to measure the AC and DC voltages (I'm not sure what kind of signal is being measured so I just did both).
Cable A's AC voltage measurement


Cable B's AC voltage measurement


Cable A's DC voltage measurement


Cable B's DC voltage measurement


The DC measurements kept fluctuating, so I'm not sure if the displayed voltages are accurate.


So all in all, how am I supposed to volume-match cables? Their measured impedances are different, and one sounds like it plays music louder than the other. Were I to evaluate the "sound quality" of the cables, I would want to properly volume-match them, but as of right now, I have no idea how to do that.


----------



## xnor

If you know the headphones' and cable's impedance at 1 kHz you can calculate it like a voltage divider.
  
 For example 20 ohm headphone, 5 ohm cable1, 3 ohm cable2, all at 1 kHz:
 20/(20+5) = 0.8
 20/(20+3) = 0.8696
  
 20*log10(0.8696/0.8) = +0.72 dB for cable2
  
  
 You could also measure the voltage across one headphone driver with the cable connected. (Gonna need a little self-built adapter for that so you have access with the probes.) For 1V output from the amp you should measure the same numbers as calculated above, assuming the amp has 0 ohm output impedance.


----------



## miceblue

xnor said:


> If you know the headphones' and cable's impedance at 1 kHz you can calculate it like a voltage divider.
> 
> For example 20 ohm headphone, 5 ohm cable1, 3 ohm cable2, all at 1 kHz:
> 20/(20+5) = 0.8
> ...



Oh, that was a lot simpler than what I was doing, hahaha. That being said, how do I adjust a source or amp's volume to such a precise number, if that's even possible. On Rockbox at least, I can change the volume by 1 dBFS, but even then, it's not that accurate.

[rule]
What's your guys' take on DSD? *xnor* I saw your posts from another website already. XD

The JDS Labs C5D uses a 32/384 DAC with delta-sigma DSD playback, but it's limited to 24/96.
http://www.ti.com/product/pcm5102a


----------



## xnor

Unless there is some extremely well-implemented noise shaping and filtering going on with both the ADC (recording) and DAC (reproduction), DSD is measurably inferior to even 24/96.
 Some would even say worse then 24/48.


----------



## Muinarc

You reminded me of a question I had a while ago but never looked into. Back in the early days of CD I remember seeing (and owning) some equipment that had a "regulated 1-Bit DAC". I know DSD is 1-bit streaming or something to that effect. 

How are the two different (I would assume quite different)? Also, were there any pros or major cons to the 1-bit DAC (or was it even a "thing" or just marketing)? 

*edit* I did some more searching at it looks like it's mostly a marketing term. It's still an oversampling DAC I guess.


----------



## krismusic

Merry Christmas to all fellow skeptics. May 2014 bear scrutiny!


----------



## bigshot




----------



## krismusic

I feel a bit outshone!


----------



## vertical

Ah, but you were the 1st nevertheless.

Merry Xmas!


----------



## krismusic

Yep. I'll take that! Very happy times to you.


----------



## xnor

Happy holidays.


----------



## xnor

I hope you're all enjoying your holidays as much as I do.


----------



## RazorJack

I'm a little late to this party, but better late than never I guess. 
 Next round of beers to my fellow objectivist audiophiles and music lovers here on Head-Fi is on me!


----------



## krismusic

razorjack said:


> I'm a little late to this party, but better late than never I guess.
> Next round of beers to my fellow objectivist audiophiles and music lovers here on Head-Fi is on me!



Shame they have to be virtual beers. Cheers!


----------



## Gignac

Subbed.
  
 So, what happened to the 'cable myth' thread?  I just visited and it's all locked up.  I guess mentioning Blackb*dy was not a great idea after all (first heard of that product through an add on this site...so...)
  
 Anyhow, glad to find this thread - now I'm off to hunt for interesting articles within.
  
 Best,


----------



## miceblue

Does anyone know of any relatively easy-to-understand resources for how op-amps work? In my electronics courses, the professor just told us it's a "magic black box." XD

I only know of how to set one up on paper with block diagrams (the triangle symbol) and in a circuit board when given the pin numbers/functions.


----------



## dvw

miceblue said:


> Does anyone know of any relatively easy-to-understand resources for how op-amps work? In my electronics courses, the professor just told us it's a "magic black box." XD
> 
> I only know of how to set one up on paper with block diagrams (the triangle symbol) and in a circuit board when given the pin numbers/functions.


 
 This is the text book I used years ago. Burr Brown's book. Titled Operation Amplifiers-Design and Applicationss by Tobey, Graeme and Huelsman. Published by McGraw Hill.


----------



## dvw

gignac said:


> Subbed.
> 
> So, what happened to the 'cable myth' thread?  I just visited and it's all locked up.  I guess mentioning Blackb*dy was not a great idea after all (first heard of that product through an add on this site...so...)
> 
> ...


 
 Only cable appreciation thread can live forever and always on top. Cable bashing thread not so much. Instead of "cable myth", if its title is generic cable appreciation thread, it will probably prosper.


----------



## castleofargh

miceblue said:


> Does anyone know of any relatively easy-to-understand resources for how op-amps work? In my electronics courses, the professor just told us it's a "magic black box." XD
> 
> I only know of how to set one up on paper with block diagrams (the triangle symbol) and in a circuit board when given the pin numbers/functions.


 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nW4hZ-PHxo
 I saw one really good video but I can't find it now (I'll put a link if I stumble upon it later). anyway this gives if not the perfect "how to", at least an understanding on why it does what it does.
 when you have this basic simplified understanding, I found other tutos to become understandable. ^_^


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

miceblue said:


> Does anyone know of any relatively easy-to-understand resources for *how op-amps work*? In my electronics courses, the professor just told us it's a "magic black box." XD
> 
> I only know of how to set one up on paper with block diagrams (the triangle symbol) and in a circuit board when given the pin numbers/functions.


 
That's kind of vague. Do you mean how to use them to make amps as what castleofargh linked or what actually goes on inside the triangle?


----------



## esldude

http://www.amazon.com/IC-Op-Amp-Cookbook-3rd-Edition/dp/0138896011
  
 This work by Walter Jung was very helpful to me many years ago.  The basics haven't changed. 
  
 I take it you are wanting to know what is in the "black box".
  
 They are usually a handful of basic high gain circuits cascaded for very high gain.  So you use lots of feedback.  Some are bi-polar circuits and some are FET, and some are hybrid. 
  
 Google:
  
 op-amp internal circuit design
  
 then look under images returned for hundreds of circuit diagrams of various op amps. 
  
 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=op-amp+internal+circuit+design


----------



## miceblue

Mmk cool, I'll definitely take a look at these. Thanks for the information!
I meant to ask what a physical op-amp looks like inside and what's in this "magic black box." From that Google search, it looks like the triangles in circuit diagrams representing amps are really just a bunch of transistors?


[rule]
On a different note, I'm browsing through HD Tracks' "audiophile picks" music selection and there are a lot of really great-sounding albums released under the Water Lily Acoustics label.
HD Tracks offers them at 24/88 though...I have to wonder where they got these so-called HD masters. From Water Lily Acoustics' website, they sell Red Book CDs and SACDs, neither of which use 24/88. :confused_face_2:

Maybe they ripped the SACD's DSD layer and converted it to 24/88 PCM? Why 24/88 though?

http://www.hdtracks.com/audiophile-picks/tabula-rasa


----------



## bigshot

No way to know what the master is. Even HDTracks has admitted they just take what they're given. Doesn't matter though because a well mastered redbook CD will sound just as good as 24/88 to human ears.


----------



## Muinarc

You mean "normal" human ears right bigshot? I mean, we audiophiles are obviously a cut above mere humans. 


In all seriousness though. I plan to do some experimenting in the near future, where I finally pay the $$ to get some of these super high bitrate files and do some transcoding to put to rest the final few questions I have about their legitimacy. I hear differences in my few SACDs but they are minor and I suspect all due to the mastering on said albums.


----------



## miceblue

With a SACD player playing between the SACD 2-channel DSD and CD 16/44 layers, the SACD definitely sounded different and more spacious.


----------



## bigshot

The mastering is rarely the same between the redbook and sacd layer on hybrid disks. The only SACD hybrid I could find with identical mastering was on the Pentatone label.


----------



## esldude

muinarc said:


> You mean "normal" human ears right bigshot? I mean, we audiophiles are obviously a cut above mere humans.
> 
> 
> In all seriousness though. I plan to do some experimenting in the near future, where I finally pay the $$ to get some of these super high bitrate files and do some transcoding to put to rest the final few questions I have about their legitimacy. I hear differences in my few SACDs but they are minor and I suspect all due to the mastering on said albums.


 

 I could save you the trouble I think.  I have done that.  Your ears aren't mine of course.  I have a few high bit rate files.  Have transcoded them to lower sample rates or different formats.  They all sound the same to me.

 As Big Shot said, mastering is the difference.  Almost always the high bitrate stuff is also remastered.  Heck some of it is from 44khz masters even. 
  
 So after a few tests for my own proof to myself, when the high bitrate sites have something I value either for better mastering (I hope) or something I don't have then I get the lowest bitrate (usually cheaper too) available.


----------



## proton007

Sometimes I feel I'm caught in a time loop.
  
 Last year or the year before that I was still writing the same arguments, because they are constant and unchanging. No matter how much you try, there's always someone or the other who'll challenge science against his ears and start an argument.
  
 Its getting tiring now. I'm thinking of creating some kind of automatic response algorithm that can reply to queries.


----------



## Muinarc

Creating an auto-reply algorithm? That's some dedication there, most people just give up and stop trying to help.


----------



## proton007

muinarc said:


> Creating an auto-reply algorithm? That's some dedication there, most people just give up and stop trying to help.




Nah. It's not as hard as it seems. A few key technical terms and you can know what the question is about. 

Lets see...a good night's sleep has done wonders. Maybe I won't retire so soon.


----------



## miceblue

Y'all just need to relax...

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HeVBPgarRs[/video]


----------



## Gignac

miceblue said:


> Y'all just need to relax...


 
 That guy makes some weird videos.  Thanks for sharing


----------



## miceblue

I'm confused. I was using the dynamic range meter tool available here: 
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

And it says it only works for 16/44 files with the offline tool. HD tracks seem to work so I tried out a new album I bought. The Objective DAC doesn't natively decode 24/88 files, but the DR tool did its thing and this was the output:


Spoiler: DR Meter Test for 24/88 Files





```
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Analyzed folder: /Users/Michael/Desktop/asdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 DR Peak RMS Filename
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 DR9 -0.10 dB -10.29 dB 01 Give Life Back to Music.m4a
 DR9 -0.10 dB -10.83 dB 02 The Game of Love.m4a
 DR7 -0.10 dB -9.06 dB 03 Giorgio by Moroder.m4a
 DR8 -0.10 dB -11.50 dB 04 Within.m4a
 DR7 -0.10 dB -8.96 dB 05 Instant Crush (ft. Julian Casablancas).m4a
 DR7 -0.10 dB -8.72 dB 06 Lose Yourself to Dance (ft. Pharrell Williams).m4a
 DR7 -0.10 dB -11.05 dB 07 Touch (ft. Paul Williams).m4a
 DR8 -0.10 dB -9.37 dB 08 Get Lucky (ft. Pharrell Williams).m4a
 DR8 -0.10 dB -10.25 dB 09 Beyond.m4a
 DR9 -0.10 dB -11.73 dB 10 Motherboard.m4a
 DR8 -0.10 dB -9.22 dB 11 Fragments of Time (ft. Todd Edwards).m4a
 DR6 -0.10 dB -8.47 dB 12 Doin' It Right (ft. Panda Bear).m4a
 DR5 -0.10 dB -8.19 dB 13 Contact.m4a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Number of files: 13
 Official DR value: DR8

==============================================================================================
```





Okay, that's cool and all. So I decided to go to the DR database and see the different DR ratings for the different versions of the song. The same album from the same website was uploaded already and the numbers differed from mine. I decided to down-sample my 24/88 files to 24/44 since the ODAC can natively decode that. After running the DR tool again, I get this output:


Spoiler: DR Meter Test for 24/44 Files





```
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Analyzed folder: /Users/Michael/Desktop/asdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 DR Peak RMS Filename
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 DR9 over -10.29 dB 01 Give Life Back to Music.m4a
 DR9 over -10.83 dB 02 The Game of Love.m4a
 DR7 over -9.06 dB 03 Giorgio by Moroder.m4a
 DR8 -0.00 dB -11.50 dB 04 Within.m4a
 DR7 over -8.96 dB 05 Instant Crush (ft. Julian Casablancas).m4a
 DR7 over -8.72 dB 06 Lose Yourself to Dance (ft. Pharrell Williams).m4a
 DR7 -0.00 dB -11.05 dB 07 Touch (ft. Paul Williams).m4a
 DR8 over -9.38 dB 08 Get Lucky (ft. Pharrell Williams).m4a
 DR9 -0.00 dB -10.25 dB 09 Beyond.m4a
 DR9 -0.01 dB -11.73 dB 10 Motherboard.m4a
 DR8 over -9.22 dB 11 Fragments of Time (ft. Todd Edwards).m4a
 DR7 over -8.47 dB 12 Doin' It Right (ft. Panda Bear).m4a
 DR6 over -8.20 dB 13 Contact.m4a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Number of files: 13
 Official DR value: DR8

==============================================================================================
```




The peak values go beyond the limit on most of the tracks, and yet the dynamic range value increased on tracks 9, 12, and 13.


What happened? The original files were in FLAC format and I converted them to Apple Lossless.


----------



## proton007

miceblue said:


> I'm confused. I was using the dynamic range meter tool available here:
> http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
> 
> And it says it only works for 16/44 files with the offline tool. HD tracks seem to work so I tried out a new album I bought. The Objective DAC doesn't natively decode 24/88 files, but the DR tool did its thing and this was the output:
> ...


 
  
 I just think the downsampling algorithm may be the reason. If a file is downsampled by half, for every two samples a single one will be chosen. If the peak is -0.01db (already very close) this particular sample may have hit the limit.
 But that's just my guess.
  
 The most puzzling thing is the difference between the vinyl and the cd versions. Pathetic. Just another way to make money off vinyl, and powering the myth that vinyl is better.


----------



## miceblue

proton007 said:


> I just think the downsampling algorithm may be the reason. If a file is downsampled by half, for every two samples a single one will be chosen. If the peak is -0.01db (already very close) this particular sample may have hit the limit.
> But that's just my guess.
> 
> The most puzzling thing is the difference between the vinyl and the cd versions. Pathetic. Just another way to make money off vinyl, and powering the myth that vinyl is better. :mad:



Hm, that's interesting to note.

What's also puzzling to me is that the lossy iTunes masters are reported to have the same, or higher, dynamic range compared to these lossless HD Tracks version.
What gives? :/

Speaking of which though, the mastered for iTunes albums might be worth investing in since they are the studio masters down-sampled by Apple's services to iTunes. That's already more information than we know about any HD Tracks album.
http://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/


----------



## Joe Bloggs

miceblue said:


> I'm confused. I was using the dynamic range meter tool available here:
> http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
> 
> And it says it only works for 16/44 files with the offline tool. HD tracks seem to work so I tried out a new album I bought. The Objective DAC doesn't natively decode 24/88 files, but the DR tool did its thing and this was the output:
> ...


I don't understand. You state up front that only 16/44.1 tracks work and then proceed to analyze a 24/88.2 and a 24/44.1 track?


----------



## miceblue

joe bloggs said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confused. I was using the dynamic range meter tool available here:
> ...



TT DR Offline Meter 1.1 says in the GUI:


I was just curious how people on the DR database get their values for HD albums and whatnot, so I tried it myself and it worked. I'm not sure what the program actually does.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

miceblue said:


> TT DR Offline Meter 1.1 says in the GUI:
> 
> 
> I was just curious how people on the DR database get their values for HD albums and whatnot, so I tried it myself and it worked. I'm not sure what the program actually does.


Then probably the only valid results are to be obtained by converting the songs to 16/44.1 before feeding them to the DR Meter.


----------



## miceblue

Do you all have golden ears? XD
https://www.goldenears.philips.com/index.html?select



> Our unique Golden Ears training program was designed to develop the listening skills of our audio engineers. Their listening expertise ensures we create products of superior sound quality that highlight every musical detail.
> 
> Graduates of the Golden Ears program can reliably detect subtle differences in sound based on the following five key attributes.
> *Timbre*
> ...




Philips knows that I only have 1 friend.


----------



## limpidglitch

When your friend is on both fb and g+, doesn't that count as two friends?


----------



## uchihaitachi

miceblue said:


> Do you all have golden ears? XD
> https://www.goldenears.philips.com/index.html?select
> Philips knows that I only have 1 friend.


 
 Is this test for real? A partially deaf could do this test...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

uchihaitachi said:


> Is this test for real? A partially deaf could do this test...




Did you finish up to gold? Most sections are as easy as you say but some sections are really hard


----------



## miceblue

Is there any particular reason why a CD master can sound different from the studio master? I mean, wouldn't it be much, much easier to just downsample the studio master to 16/44?


----------



## bigshot

In a recording studio, they mix each song separately, and the songs sound fine by themselves. But when the songs are sequenced one after another in album order, the relationship between the volume levels and timbre in each song don't match up. So a mastering engineer EQs and alters the volume and compression to make the songs flow as an album. If the mastering engineer isn't good at what he does, he can royally screw up a record. If he's good, he can improve it.


----------



## miceblue

bigshot said:


> In a recording studio, they mix each song separately, and the songs sound fine by themselves. But when the songs are sequenced one after another in album order, the relationship between the volume levels and timbre in each song don't match up. So a mastering engineer EQs and alters the volume and compression to make the songs flow as an album. If the mastering engineer isn't good at what he does, he can royally screw up a record. If he's good, he can improve it.



Interesting. So when a website sells so-called HD music, is that [in theory] really the studio master? If so, most if not all of the so-called HD music I've purchased sounds pretty good to me...but then again, I'm not a mastering engineer so as a consumer it sounds pretty good to me.


----------



## bigshot

No, it's almost certainly not off the recording master. Anything released to the public would be off the sweetened and balanced master.


----------



## miceblue

Ah, mmk. That makes more sense then.


[rule]I just saw this:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-5/audio-quality.htm


> The near-zero (4.5 Ω) output impedance of the iPhone 5 is much better (lower) than most dedicated headphone amplifiers, even most exotic audiophile amps, and therefore its response is not significantly affected by the headphones in use. Most dedicated amplifiers have about ten times the output impedance of the iPhone 5, and allow about a dB or two of false bass boost with the Ultrasone Edition 8.




What? Since when is 4.5 Ω considered near-zero and since when did dedicated headphone amplifiers have an output impedance higher than that?


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

10ish ohms is widely considered near zero from my experience in engineering but that might be due to our use of kilo-ohm resistors ... 10/10k is insignificant depending on the circuit


----------



## bigshot

I've never seen the need for an amp for any of my Apple products... phone, pad, computer, pod.


----------



## miceblue

Hm, this isn't anything objective, but it's an interesting perspective:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU3V6zNER4g[/video]


I've never heard of this artist before.


----------



## wakibaki

Yes, she's profoundly deaf.

4.5 ohms is quite high. Output impedances <1 ohm are readily achievable, and most speaker amplifiers (SS that is) achieve <1 ohm.

nikongod likes higher output impedances, but I don't. Since there's no standard set (none that's adhered to now) my view is that very low impedances are the most likely to be encountered, now and in the future.

w


----------



## dclaz

https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
  
 Great video with simple explanations of digital sampling, bit depth, dither, band limitation and timing.


----------



## dclaz

This is interesting too...
  


> 192kHz considered harmful
> 
> 192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.
> Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.


 
  
 Source: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html


----------



## miceblue

dclaz said:


> https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
> 
> Great video with simple explanations of digital sampling, bit depth, dither, band limitation and timing.



So if the DAC doesn't do the staircase representation going back to the analog waveform from digital samples, what does it do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-to-analog_converter#Practical_operation


> These numbers are written to the DAC, typically with a clock signal that causes each number to be latched in sequence, at which time the DAC output voltage changes rapidly from the previous value to the value represented by the currently latched number. The effect of this is that the output voltage is held in time at the current value until the next input number is latched, resulting in a piecewise constant or staircase-shaped output. This is equivalent to a zero-order hold operation and has an effect on the frequency response of the reconstructed signal.


----------



## bigshot

The output of the DAC goes through a filter that "connects the dots" between the stair steps and reconstructs the waveform.


----------



## mikeaj

Yes, the reconstruction filter is mathematically part of the process. Check any DSP textbook or resource.
  
 But note that in practice, most audio DACs are oversampling delta-sigma affairs anyway, so there's not actually 2^N possible output values internally (with N being the bit depth).


----------



## Don Hills

miceblue said:


> So if the DAC doesn't do the staircase representation going back to the analog waveform from digital samples, what does it do?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-to-analog_converter#Practical_operation


 
  
 Take some time and watch the mentioned video, especially the 4 minutes from about 3:37 to 7:30.
  
 The Wikipedia piece isn't strictly correct. Not all DACs produce a zero-order hold output. Some produce a narrow pulse of the required current or voltage value, rather than holding it steady for the whole sample period. Even for zero-order hold, it's not all bad. It results in a slight low-pass filter effect which simplifies the reconstruction filter.


----------



## miceblue

don hills said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > So if the DAC doesn't do the staircase representation going back to the analog waveform from digital samples, what does it do?
> ...



I did watch the video, but he didn't explain at all how the staircase disappears in the analog waveform.

Interesting to hear about the filters though.


----------



## Don Hills

miceblue said:


> I did watch the video, but he didn't explain at all how the staircase disappears in the analog waveform.
> 
> Interesting to hear about the filters though.


 
  
 The following is over-simplified but will hopefully make sense:
 What do the "stair steps" look a bit like? Square wave steps.
 What is a square wave? It's made up of a (sine wave) fundamental frequency and harmonics.
 Now filter off all the harmonics. You're left with the fundamental sine wave.
 It's the same thing with the unfiltered output of a DAC. Filter off all harmonics higher in frequency higher than half the sampling rate, and you're left with a smooth curve.


----------



## mikeaj

don hills said:


> The following is over-simplified but will hopefully make sense:
> What do the "stair steps" look a bit like? Square wave steps.
> What is a square wave? It's made up of a (sine wave) fundamental frequency and harmonics.
> Now filter off all the harmonics. You're left with the fundamental sine wave.
> It's the same thing with the unfiltered output of a DAC. Filter off all harmonics higher in frequency higher than half the sampling rate, and you're left with a smooth curve.


 
  
 Yup.
  
 For another take, think about what it takes to get a sharp, abrupt change in the level like on a staircase. You need very high frequencies. To get very fast changes you need very high frequencies.
  
 Think of the filter as a block of electronics that are preventing those very high frequencies from passing through, filtering them out. It's continually processing the input (what's from the DAC) and generating a processed version for the output based on the characteristics of that block. If it sees a very sudden change in the input, that change (which contains very high frequencies) is getting filtered and slowed down, smoothing out the response of the output compared to the input.
  
 What with all the handwaving, hopefully that didn't create extra confusion.


----------



## limpidglitch

mikeaj said:


> Yup.
> 
> For another take, think about what it takes to get a sharp, abrupt change in the level like on a staircase. You need very high frequencies. To get very fast changes you need very high frequencies.
> 
> ...


 
  
 A third take is to say that the stair-steps was never there, only the data points exist.
 And in the same way as there is only one possible straight line that can connect two given points, as long as there are more than two data points per cycle, there is only one possible sine wave that can fit them all.
  
Interpolation


----------



## mikeaj

The actual data is discrete time, but you can say the staircase exists like that in some systems—just as an intermediary step in a process. 
  
 The solutions aren't always just pure sign waves though. If there are multiple frequencies, you need to specify the phase for uniqueness. e.g. an impulse (containing many frequencies) will result in a different looking continuous-time representation for a minimum phase filter than a linear phase one. That is, unless I need some coffee / hitting the books really bad and am forgetting something. 
  
 Also, if there are fewer than two data points per cycle, that still gets represented with the same kind of uniqueness, just using the wrong frequencies...


----------



## limpidglitch

It was more an attempt of a conceptual description of how one can make smooth curves from discrete points, rather than describing how it's actually done in a DAC.
 But I believe, given the right conditions, or rules, for drawing the curves, it's theoretically reasonably sound.


----------



## miceblue

Mmk that helped clear things up then.

Another question I have is why does professional audio equipment use an ADC sampling at higher than 44.1 kHz? I'm taking a course about the LabVIEW software and the recommended textbook suggests not to sampling past twice the Nyquist frequency or else aliasing can occur.
Oh, I think this answered my question: https://www.xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml




Also, this is completely random, but does anyone know of where I can test to see how small of a difference in loudness I can hear between two samples?

I remember doing such a test and they sent the results via e-mail, but I can't seem to find them. I seem to recall that I could hear a 0.5 dB difference, but I'm not 100% sure. I'm not sure what to type in Google either. XD

No it wasn't the Golden Ears test either.


----------



## limpidglitch

miceblue said:


> Also, this is completely random, but does anyone know of where I can test to see how small of a difference in loudness I can hear between two samples?
> 
> I remember doing such a test and they sent the results via e-mail, but I can't seem to find them. I seem to recall that I could hear a 0.5 dB difference, but I'm not 100% sure. I'm not sure what to type in Google either. XD
> 
> No it wasn't the Golden Ears test either.


 
  
 Should be pretty easy to do yourself. All you'd need is Audacity (or something similar) to whisk up a couple of samples and some ABX software to test yourself.
  
 As to what kind of samples, I'd probably go with some pure 1kHz sine tones, and start with maybe a .5dB difference and gradually reduce it until I can no longer reliably tell the difference.


----------



## miceblue

limpidglitch said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > Also, this is completely random, but does anyone know of where I can test to see how small of a difference in loudness I can hear between two samples?
> ...



Mmk, that sounds easy enough.



[rule]Now if I wanted to do a blind test, how do I make it so that the files are all the same size? I want to do a proper 24/192 vs downsampled 16/44 test.

I was thinking of using XLD (for Mac) or Audacity to do the downsampling. Is there another free program that you all recommend that might do the job better?


----------



## limpidglitch

If you use a program like ABXer you don't need the files to be equal size.
  
 XLD have never given me any grief, but if you're paranoid, and like command-line interfaces, SoX would be the thing. Available trough MacPorts for convenience.


----------



## miceblue

limpidglitch said:


> If you use a program like ABXer you don't need the files to be equal size.
> 
> XLD have never given me any grief, but if you're paranoid, and like command-line interfaces, SoX would be the thing. Available trough MacPorts for convenience.



I totally forgot about that program. Thanks!

The link is down, but fortunately I had a backup of my previously-used apps, including ABXer.


----------



## miceblue

I just saw this. What do you all think about it?
http://www.crystalcable.com/CMS/ckfinder/userfiles/files/HIFI+96_EqRev_Crystal%20HR.pdf


----------



## dclaz

miceblue said:


> I just saw this. What do you all think about it?
> http://www.crystalcable.com/CMS/ckfinder/userfiles/files/HIFI+96_EqRev_Crystal%20HR.pdf


 
 I think they are beautiful cables.... 
  
  
 But they won't sound any better than standard cheap ones


----------



## miceblue

dclaz said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > I just saw this. What do you all think about it?
> ...



Mmk that's what I thought too.

So then what could explain the findings in this article?
http://www.crystalcable.com/CMS/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Hi-Fi+%20februari%202012%20Crystal%20Cable%20USB.pdf


----------



## dclaz

miceblue said:


> Mmk that's what I thought too.
> 
> So then what could explain the findings in this article?
> http://www.crystalcable.com/CMS/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Hi-Fi+%20februari%202012%20Crystal%20Cable%20USB.pdf


 
 Dishonesty and poor 'experimental controls', mostly. 
  
 I think it's extremely reasonable to be sceptical of perceivable differences in a digital cable.


----------



## miceblue

dclaz said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > Mmk that's what I thought too.
> ...



Sure it's simple to say that one should expect to be skeptical, but what if the results are true?

Should they be false, someone should jump on them for being phoney, marketing scum, and whatnot, no?


----------



## RapierApe

miceblue said:


> Mmk that's what I thought too.
> 
> So then what could explain the findings in this article?
> http://www.crystalcable.com/CMS/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Hi-Fi+%20februari%202012%20Crystal%20Cable%20USB.pdf


 
  
 Problems with test:
  
 1) 5 is not a large sample number.  If 5 people randomly picked numbers between 1 - 5 you'd be surprised to find how often 3 or more of them had the same number.  I think they usually pick #3.
  
 2) Bias from test administrator, if all 5 of the subjects used the terms "cheap and nasty" to describe one cable it is very likely the test administrator influenced them on that trial.  Often with tone of voice.  This is why good studies use double blind procedures.
  
 3) Test subjects influencing each other.  Sounds like the test was performed on all subjects at once, meaning they likely were influenced by what the other testees reported.
  
 4) Testing methods not specified.  Was each cable played only once?  Did the test adminster ever lie about switching cables?  That's important.   They should lie and claim they switched cables while actually keeping the same cable.  That would validate the testees ability to actually hear a difference. Cause people hate to say they sound the same.  They will often guess as to what's different.  Sometimes say it's cable A, when it's really cable B, that prevents testees from forming their own bias during the testing.
  
 5) Test is not reproduced.  Should be redone with different administrator, different test subjects, and the results should be compared.  I think it's called a t-test, and the goal is to determine how likely the results of the studies can be attributed to chance.
  
 Basically it's not a scientific test and should not be considered as such.  It's actually really really hard to preform good tests.  Even in lab settings with experienced professors its really really hard. Even the best, most rigorous scientific studies must be independently reproduced before the results are considered meaningful.  
  
 And, of course, it's a magazine with a vested interest in selling you stuff....  so it could all just be total ********!  I mean... it's kind of convenient that the most expensive cable sounded the best, but if you can't afford it, don't worry!  Nearly half of the people preferred the 2ND most expensive cable...... but the only cable that isn't available to buy at a fancy store?  That one is "cheap and nasty".


----------



## dclaz

miceblue said:


> Sure it's simple to say that one should expect to be skeptical, but what if the results are true?
> 
> Should they be false, someone should jump on them for being phoney, marketing scum, and whatnot, no?


 
  
 The results may be true, the sample size was small and the conditions may have lead to some bias, so it's entirely possible the participants identified the cables in that way. However, every proper and controlled trial and test will show that there is no perceivable between digital cables (provided they meet spec).
  
 As for them being false, audio magazines are constantly filled with such material. It wouldn't be much of a magazine and a vehicle to sell adds if every month every article said 'sounds exactly like the other cables we've used' year after year after year. These are articles in these magazines that claim audiophile SATA hard drive cables make a difference - they just don't.


----------



## RapierApe

miceblue said:


> Sure it's simple to say that one should expect to be skeptical, but what if the results are true?
> 
> Should they be false, someone should jump on them for being phoney, marketing scum, and whatnot, no?


 
  
 Well, some people probably will jump on them and call them phoney.  But no one will pay attention.  And none of the skeptics will spend $2000 on a USB cable and waste a weekend performing proper testing.  I wish someone would.  It would make it a little harder to sell BS!  But I ain't got no $2000 and my weekend is for sleeping in and playing videogames.  No help here.


----------



## dclaz

rapierape said:


> Well, some people probably will jump on them and call them phoney.  But no one will pay attention.  And none of the skeptics will spend $2000 on a USB cable and waste a weekend performing proper testing.  I wish someone would.  It would make it a little harder to sell BS!  But I ain't got no $2000 and my weekend is for sleeping in and playing videogames.  No help here.


 
 The testing wouldn't make a difference anyway. People who want to spend that much money on a cable don't believe in ABX testing, and probably don't care much for 'measurements.'


----------



## miceblue

Hm, mmk. Those all make sense to me then, and those were very good points that were brought up.

If I make my own headphone cable, do you all have any suggestions for where to start? I was planning to make a balanced cable for a future amp (it'll probably be a 1-time thing for me, just to see if balanced can do much for me), but I'm not sure how to re-wire things in my current headphones. Some of the DIY cables look pretty cool actually.

I have the AKG K 701 as my main dynamic headphone (my other main headphone is my STAX). I'm not planning to re-cable my V-MODA M-100 since I pretty much use that exclusively for mobile listening.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-cable-measurements-wrap


> DIY Opportunity - Recabling headphones is a great way to express your DIY skills. I would strongly recommend spending quite a bit of time building interconnects and headphone extension cables before attempting to re-cable a pair of headphones, but re-wiring your cans is a really fun mid-level DIY project for those interested and properly skilled.





And I just came across this thread too.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/564978/19-custom-iem-tf10-shure-ie8-cables-reviewed-effect-pearl-apollo-odin-added-3-20-13
http://gizmodo.com/5210904/giz-explains-why-analog-audio-cables-really-arent-all-the-same


> When proving his theory of skin depth, Professor Hawksford wrote, "I am not trying to say that this effect is necessarily significant, only that an error component is predicted by our theory and is shown by the measurements to exist." I think that sums up where the real division lies in the audio cable debate. Some people say they can hear it, others refuse to buy that these proven tweaks of electricity and electromagnetism are audible.
> 
> You're not going to hear it on a $350 home-theater-in-a-box system that came with speakers thrown in. But if you spend a few grand per speaker, and a fair amount on a receiver, you just might stand a chance of hearing some differences. If you spend $100,000 on a home-theater setup, well, you've probably got the cash to buy any audio cables you want, so I'm not sure I give a damn what you buy.




I don't think I've seen any scientific tests with super-expensive cables. Have you guys?


----------



## RapierApe

miceblue said:


> Hm, mmk. Those all make sense to me then, and those were very good points that were brought up.
> 
> If I make my own headphone cable, do you all have any suggestions for where to start? I was planning to make a balanced cable for a future amp (it'll probably be a 1-time thing for me, just to see if balanced can do much for me), but I'm not sure how to re-wire things in my current headphones. Some of the DIY cables look pretty cool actually.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Super expensive cables often test terribly by all the measures that Gizmondo article mentions.  That's why they rarely make any objective claims with their products.  They don't say it conducts electricity better.  They go for arguments that try to shame the buyer.  If you spent enough money on your system than you MAY be able to hear a difference. Really?  If I don't hear a difference I should spend more?
  
 I worked for an audio retailer for years from sales to marketing.  I found with cables that all which really mattered was how secure a connection they made, flexibility and weight, and the gauge and length of copper.
  
 A weak connection meant it might distort the sound or drop signal in and out.  Many expensive cables had overly tight connections because of this.  To the point that you would damage your equipment if weren't careful removing it.  The extra weight and lack of flexibility of many expensive cables made this problem worse.  Look for a nice tight fit that comes undone when you want it to.
  
 Gauge and length, well there's math to that.  I don't remember it anymore. It makes a big difference when hooking up DC powered amps in car audio.  Amps won't turn on if they don't sense a strong enough ground.  With speaker wire as long as it's thick enough not to break when crimped than I never heard a difference.  I have connected my speakers with everything from "garbage wire" to DIY CAT5 cable to Monster THX TOTL whatever it was called.  All sounded the same.  I ended up using my DIY Cat5 cable because it is beautiful in a geeky way to me.  All rainbow colored.  Very stiff and hard to work with.
  
 The only time I heard audible distortion due to interference was in car audio.  Run the signal near power and you could hear distortion directly related to the alternator.  I'm not sure if the fanciest cables would have helped.  It was cheaper to run the signal separated from the power.  Some cables might provide better shielding, I've never noticed it to be an issue in home audio.
  
 If you can show me reliable measurements that a product performs better I will probably pay for it.  If I can hear a difference with my eyes closed I might pay for it.  And I only want to pay the smallest amount I can get the performance for!   I'm certainly open to the possibility that all kinds of cables affect the sound.  The world is very complex.  But until you find a good way to measure it, I'm not gonna buy it on blind faith.  And unless I can hear it with my eyes closed, I'm not gonna think it's worth my money.
  
 I have found most cables to perform the same.  I've seen expensive cables damage demo equipment due to tight connections and heavy weight.  I have seen real cheap cables that fail to connect and/or break.  A good cable is nice and thick, but not too thick or heavy, with solid connectors.  I like making my own from Cat5 cause I got bunches around and I think it's sexy. 
  
 I have no measurements to back up the sexy claim on my DIY cables.  I'm afraid if I did a double blind test my friends would tell me they are, in fact, ugly ugly.  So I'll just keep telling myself they are glorious to behold, and I'm fine with the lie.     
  
 I guess I should mention I'm relatively new to headphones, so my cable and wire experience is all home audio.  I will recable the first set of headphones I break and use whatever cheap wire I can find suitable for headphones.  Even though I admit silver wire in a see through sleeve looks AWESOME!


----------



## miceblue

Interesting. If I make my own DIY cable, how do I know if the connection is too tight or too loose?

Also, what do you make of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_pattern
http://6moons.com/audioreviews/lightharmonic/2.html

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue70/ramblings_2013.htm
Interesting to note, and I find this to be true too.


> Measurements allow us to create a representative abstraction with which to try and understand aspects of performance, some of them very fine aspects—but just because the measurements can represent all that we know about these phenomena doesn't mean that they, perforce, represent all that is there, all that we will ever know about it.
> 
> The limitation of measurement is simple: measurements cannot account for what they cannot account for. And to pretend, as it seems you do, that perceptible phenomena are limited by the limits of measurement (and the paradigmatic contexts that lend them and limit their meaning and usefulness) is to work an equation from the result, backwards. If you're missing a variable in the equation, your assumptions about the operators may be correct ... but incomplete.




Take so-called driver burn-in for example. Tyll at Innerfidelity attempted to measure it and his findings were inconclusive about its existence. Objectivists always say no, driver burn-in doesn't exist, but many people clam it exists. You can't really blind test it either because you get unit variance with different headphones.


----------



## castleofargh

the only time I actually spent time(a lot actually as one article leads to another) reading about what made one of those expensive cable so unique, there was luckily enough, a very nice and complete description of what was done to the cable and why(don't remember the brand right now cause I'm old and also a liar, scared of how an admin might react if I actually tell that the brand is ********ting people "fox news style"):
  
 -there was some teflon involved. obviously so very rare in cables... almost as rare as it's expensive I guess ^_^.
  
 -then there was something done to the cable, some very meticulous and said expensive cryo stuff with temperature stages and all. that was supposed to add everything, strength, soundstage ...
 when looking up the technique they described, it was actually proven to do what was told. it had a purpose in making iron based components sturdier due to something special in iron, too bad the cables were copper and silver made I guess ...
  
 -and lastly of course the way it was braided that again made all the difference in sound and had again the purpose described, as it's actually effective on high frequencies. only it's done for radio signals frequencies, not audio range ones. the closest thing I could find trying desperately to give them a point, and after hours of the web telling me it was idiotic, there was this one paper telling that the effects were starting to be really measurable from around 15khz and above(ofc it was a cable for a multi driver IEM that rolled off long before 15khz but let's dismiss that one joke for science).
  
 suffice to say that it didn't help me become a believer of magic cables.
 so my conclusion was that impedance difference would mostly make the signal a little louder or quieter but absolutely not better or worst, unless you take into account that louder is better for us poor humans. thus all the bias and people saying they heard all the differences. 
 the only actually useful thing I learned was to braid the cable, if only for EMI/RFI protection. from that I concluded that I could braid a 5bucks cable myself and be the kind of the world(with zero Oscar).
 I keep buying cables, probably more often than most. as I have countless ways to kill them(hulk smash). but I pick them for how pretty they are, how cheap they are, or how they're known to be comfy and low on "microphonics". and anytime I see a seller talk about how the sound gets warmer with gold, I close the tab and go buy somewhere else.


----------



## miceblue

Yeah I am aware of the impedance differences. I have a FiiO brand headphone replacement cable and I tried my best to volume-match it with the stock headphone cable using a single headphone amplifier. It's hard to do when the amplifier has a digitally-controlled volume and it's hard enough to do it with an analog one. Despite turning the volume louder on the stock cable, I'm pretty certain I could hear a difference with the FiiO one, which is made of the Pure Copper Ohno Continuous Cast instead of the stock headphone cable's run of the mill 99.999% oxygen free copper (probably).


----------



## miceblue

Switching gears, I just did a quick Google Scholar search of "high resolution audio" and this was the first result.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14186

Which used this as one of their references:
http://www.extra.research.philips.com/hera/people/aarts/RMA_papers/aar07pu4.pdf
Woszczyk, W., Engel, J., Usher, J., Aarts, R., Reefman, D., June 2007. Which of the two digital audio systems best matches the quality of the analog system?. Audio Engineering Society 31st International Conference.


> (overview of conclusions)
> In the last few years, a number of complex listening tests were performed at the NHK Science and Technical Research Laboratories in Tokyo, Japan [1,2] to identify the importance of very high frequencies (over 21 kHz) in the discrimination of high sampling rate recordings. These tests were performed using two-channel stereo recordings of many different program types some containing large magnitudes of high- frequency energy. In double-blind tests, casual and professional listeners could not reliably identify high-bandwidth and high-resolution (192 kHz 24bit versus 48 kHz 24bit) conditions.
> ...
> (audio preparation)
> ...






I am thoroughly confused by the last 3 paragraphs. So audio extending beyond 20 kHz sounded less like the analog version to the subjects, yet the paper suggests converting audio to the higher bandwidths.

What the heck? *scratches head*


----------



## JRG1990

Ultrasonics can cause amps and dacs to oscillate which creates distortion in the audible range, which is why 192khz might sound different.


----------



## miceblue

jrg1990 said:


> Ultrasonics can cause amps and dacs to oscillate which creates distortion in the audible range, which is why 192khz might sound different.



Parts within the amps and DACs have a natural frequency in that range? o.0


Also, the lack of any scientific publishing regarding 24 vs 16-bit audio concerns me; likewise for 44.1+ kHz audio and why such sampling rates might matter in the audio reproduction range. Sure, 192 kHz sampling rates have the Nyquist frequency of 96 kHz, but no one here ever mentions that such sampling rates may be useful for digital filters and whatnot; people only say "oh 192 kHz / 2 is out of the audible frequency range so it's useless."


----------



## Muinarc

It is out of the audible frequency range so it's useless.


----------



## bigshot

Super audible frequencies are indeed the only way to discriminate between redbook and high bitrate audio. That is one of the few differences between the two. But that isn't important because studies by the AES have shown that super audible frequencies are completely irrelevant when it comes to sound quality in music.
  
 Human beings can perceive super audible frequencies as sound pressure, but not sound. Music is sound.


----------



## bigshot

I had the opportunity to check my ears when it came to frequency response recently. I've tuned the response of my speaker system by ear using good recordings of acoustic instruments. Oppo asked me to be a beta tester with their PM-1 headphones, so I shifted to cans, downloaded an equalizer for my iMac and started in balancing the cans the same way I did my speakers. It was a lot easier, because the deviation was within 3dB on the beta versions of the headphones they sent me. I jotted down my settings, then invited an engineer friend over to run tone sweeps on them. He found the exact same deviations from flat that I had, and some narrow range dips I had missed because my equalizer wasn't sharp enough to catch them. It was a pleasant surprise to find that I was so close to correct using my admittedly low tech technique. Oppo took the notes from me and the other beta testers and applied it to their next version. I just got the final retail version and it is the most balanced set of headphones I've ever heard.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

bigshot said:


> I had the opportunity to check my ears when it came to frequency response recently. I've tuned the response of my speaker system by ear using good recordings of acoustic instruments. Oppo asked me to be a beta tester with their PM-1 headphones, so I shifted to cans, downloaded an equalizer for my iMac and started in balancing the cans the same way I did my speakers. It was a lot easier, because the deviation was within 3dB on the beta versions of the headphones they sent me. I jotted down my settings, then invited an engineer friend over to run tone sweeps on them. He found the exact same deviations from flat that I had, and some narrow range dips I had missed because my equalizer wasn't sharp enough to catch them. It was a pleasant surprise to find that I was so close to correct using my admittedly low tech technique. Oppo took the notes from me and the other beta testers and applied it to their next version. I just got the final retail version and it is the most balanced set of headphones I've ever heard.


 
 can you somehow compare them to HiFiMan or Audeze?


----------



## bigshot

I don't have those. I can only compare them to my Sennheiser HD-590s, which they are in a totally different universe from, and my speaker system, which for two channel they sound just as good, maybe a tiny bit better. (The speakers win hands down in 5:1).


----------



## bigshot

Boy, it's been a while since I was out in the bizarro world on headfi. I laid out a pretty detailed breakdown of the differences in the response curves of the beta headphones I evaluated... including one derived from very careful two octave test tone sweeps... and the headphone junkies are telling me that they can't get any concept of what headphones sound like from info on frequency response. One of them told me that two headphones with the same frequency response can sound completely different because of "speed and PRAT" and another tried to tell me that Beats had a relatively flat frequency response!

It's interesting how much time people spend talking about headphones without actually learning how they work. I don't think that many of these people know what balanced response sounds like. They only know a million different shades of colored.


----------



## swspiers

bigshot said:


> Boy, it's been a while since I was out in the bizarro world on headfi. I laid out a pretty detailed breakdown of the differences in the response curves of the beta headphones I evaluated... including one derived from very careful two octave test tone sweeps... and the headphone junkies are telling me that they can't get any concept of what headphones sound like from info on frequency response. One of them told me that two headphones with the same frequency response can sound completely different because of "speed and PRAT" and another tried to tell me that Beats had a relatively flat frequency response!
> 
> It's interesting how much time people spend talking about headphones without actually learning how they work. I don't think that many of these people know what balanced response sounds like. They only know a million different shades of colored.


 

 I for one am very appreciative that you ventured into the bizarre world, especially since you knew what to expect and went there anyway. You gave a thoroughly convincing description of what you found with the headphones, and you did an outstanding job of communicating your findings.  And yes, they have no idea of what balanced sound is, and they probably never will.
  
 anyway, thank-you very much for braving those waters. Hic sunt dracones


----------



## bigshot

The thing that I'm really happy about was that I could help Oppo refine their headphones. The response of the first beta they sent me was very good, but it was obviously skewed to what audiophiles think sounds good... upper mid and mid bass boost, high end rolloff, etc. I used my EQ to give them specific suggestions about corrections listing exact specs for frequency and volume, and damn if they didn't incorporate them perfectly. If you want to hear what my dream headphones would sound like, check out the Oppos.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

bigshot said:


> Boy, it's been a while since I was out in the bizarro world on headfi. I laid out a pretty detailed breakdown of the differences in the response curves of the beta headphones I evaluated... including one derived from very careful two octave test tone sweeps... and the headphone junkies are telling me that they can't get any concept of what headphones sound like from info on frequency response. One of them told me that two headphones with the same frequency response can sound completely different because of "speed and PRAT" and another tried to tell me that Beats had a relatively flat frequency response!
> 
> It's interesting how much time people spend talking about headphones without actually learning how they work. I don't think that many of these people know what balanced response sounds like. They only know a million different shades of colored.


 
 lol this is why I took a chance in asking here about a comparison first rather elsewhere. There will be a lot of chippers of varying knowledge of headphones and it becomes chaotic to navigate through the thread for info.
  
 A few questions if you don't mind, what EQ were you using and why did you use that one specifically? Are they at all affordable?
  
 Were you able to test the velour vs the leather pads?
  
 and lastly, did the Oppo engineers mention anything about their design? I am rather bewildered as to why they chose the transducer to be confined and the opening like a typical dynamic driver. I was under the impression that the main thing that helps the sound of the planar magnetics to be like a 2 channel system is the planar wavefront as well as the greater flow of air.


----------



## mikeaj

Well, one thing that is true is that the sound of headphones (relative to speakers) depends on the head, ears, torso, etc. of the listener. i.e. the way real life and speakers sound is influenced by anatomical factors that vary from person to person, and some of these are bypassed or are different (never mind if the headphones fit onto the head differently) when using headphones. So to produce a natural / perceptually flat sound on headphones, you need a different tuning for each person, technically. Thus, having a comparison to other headphones can be useful, and there is some justification of being suspicious of "hey it sounds flat like calibrated speakers in room."
  
 That's definitely not what most people are thinking or talking about, though.


----------



## bigshot

I did rough checks using Boom for Mac, but when we did the tone sweeps, my sound engineer friend brought over his signal generator and pro grade digital equalizer. We checked each other at each step and were probably accurate to about 1dB.

I had two beta versions at once that Oppo said were the same sound, just different headbands. One had leatherette and the other had velour. They came out to pretty much the same response... within 1dB or so which is just variation between copies. The subjectivists in the test group swore the velour softened the sound, but we didn't find any difference at all sound wise. (I wouldn't imagine there would be with the drivers pointing straight down your ear canal.)

I'm afraid I'm not up on headphone design theory. There was a point early on where one of the beta testers suggested a modification to the damping and it was incorporated into the next beta, but I don't know what that was all about. The designer we were speaking with kept speaking way over my head. I was lost in some of those conversations. He was an expert in planar designs, having designed speakers with the same concept. I got the impression that he was working on his own theories based on trial and error and experimentation, not generally accepted thought on the subject.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Thank you bigshot
  
 I just finished about a month of research based on planar magnetic transducer used on headphones I did for an engineering class at my university, wasn't too serious but just a rough look at the tech. I was fairly certain that what made the planar magnetics different is their airflow or how energy was transferred to air particles. That extra encasing does seem to be unconventional as it looks like it would limit the airflow.
  
The headbands should not affect sound at all but earpads can. It is why Mr.Speaker can supposedly make their maddogs "sound" like an LCD-2.
  
stock t50rp:   http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/FostexT50RP2011B.pdf 
to maddogs:  http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/MrSpeakersMadDogA.pdf
vs LCD2:       http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2SN5312123.pdf


----------



## bigshot

Good grief. The bizarro world alternates between "measurements mean nothing- use your ears" and "ears mean nothing because they aren't as sensitive as machines". I analyzed the frequency response the way I always do, using a tone generator, an equalizer and my ears, and these folks are telling me that my measurements are completely subjective and worthless.
  
 They swear that an audibly balanced response is theoretically impossible and I am just making it up. Instead, they show me headphone measurement charts with 10dB boosts at one end and and 20dB dips at the other and say that sounds balanced to them. They go on and on about model heads and correction curves to account for ear canal shapes, but none of that applies because I tuned the response by ear. I think the whole idea of the headphone group is to totally obfuscate so everything becomes confused and everyone is right and everyone is wrong.
  
 Sure, my own hearing may rate as +/- 2 or 3dB and I may not hear balanced in the highest half octave of human hearing, but that really doesn't matter. Flat to +/-3dB with a rolloff above 12-14kHz is pretty damn good for a set of cans. And yes, I do know what those numbers sound like!
  
 (Shaking my head)


----------



## bigshot

kamijoismyhero said:


> I just finished about a month of research based on planar magnetic transducer used on headphones I did for an engineering class at my university, wasn't too serious but just a rough look at the tech.


 
  
 Maybe you'll find a clue by looking at these... http://www.bgcorp.com/planar-magnetic.html They are the planar magnetic speakers designed by the guy who designed the PM-1s.


----------



## mikeaj

bigshot said:


> They go on and on about model heads and correction curves to account for ear canal shapes, but none of that applies because I tuned the response by ear.


 
  
 No, this part actually matters *because* you tuned it by ear. The response everybody gets in real life and on speakers at the ear drum depends on their ears (ear canal, head, etc.), and the response you get with headphones at the ear drum isn't affected in the same way by the same anatomy. If you tune headphones to be flat to you, it will be a little off to other people—though much better than the vast majority of headphones, of course. At best, all that can be done is for a headphone to hit a target for the average person, so to speak.
  
 Tuning speakers flat by ear, if you do it right, works for everybody. Tuning headphones by ear or by machine or whatever method to get it flat for one target or person gets it right for that target or person. It's not universal. In other words, if you tuned it to a target, that would be a reference point. However, if you tuned it by ear for yourself (for the sake of argument, assuming they did it 100%), nobody would know what the response would exactly be unless you measured the response in your ear canal. It's a valid target but not a reference point anyone else would know.
  
 In practice, nobody's hitting the target they want exactly anyway, so...


----------



## castleofargh

but then again there is factual objective measurement, and there is the rest.  saying that anything not measured under conditions is wrong is going a bit fast IMO.
 if bigshot spent years working with pros, his "by ear" might not be your random new to the hobby "by ear" and thus, not so far away from truth as one might think(even if as aways we would have to decide upon what neutral is).
 just like people always put too much contrast and saturation in post treatments of pictures, and would never get a good white balance. when on the other hand, most pro photographers would go for something very close when setting white balance(not counting artistic choices), because they have experience, and spent time seeing how the real thing should look like with perfectly calibrated systems. so it doesn't matter how many green cones they have in the eye, they just learned how it should be. it doesn't give the perfect result, but close to it yup!
  
 I'm kind of OK with both sides here, let's not make it a matter of principle. bigshot was just sharing his discovery of some gear thinking it might interests us, he's not going to buy 3000$ power cable tomorrow, and wasn't trying to say that we all should give up on science.


----------



## bigshot

mikeaj said:


> No, this part actually matters *because* you tuned it by ear. The response everybody gets in real life and on speakers at the ear drum depends on their ears (ear canal, head, etc.), and the response you get with headphones at the ear drum isn't affected in the same way by the same anatomy. If you tune headphones to be flat to you, it will be a little off to other people—




How much off?

This is the absurd thing... The whole point of tuning EQ by ear is to get it ballparked so it sounds good to the typical range of human ears, not to refine the measurements down to inaudible levels that only machines can hear. If your ears are 1dB or 2dB more sensitive than my ears in some frequency range, it's not going to make diddly squat difference. Human ears aren't sensitive enough for absolute precision to matter. When you tune by ear, you're working within the range of perceptual thresholds anyway which have a certain amount of wiggle room. A balanced response doesn't have to be stone flat to a microphone with super audible ability to measure. It just has to be basically flat to within the tolerances of normal human ears. People keep jumping to absolutes claiming if it isn't completely measurably flat to inaudible levels, it isn't flat. That isn't true. Human beings prefer flattish response curves. The response curve doesn't have to be any more precise than human ears are.

Now I can see someone saying, "Your hearing above 15kHz is probably not accurate enough to balance EQ by ear" and I would certainly agree with them. But frequencies in that range don't really matter anyway. And they might say, "You are off by 3dB here and there." And I wouldn't doubt it. But the sound to typical human ears is balanced either way. Close enough for government work.

It's bizarro world when people post purely subjective impressions of headphones with absolutely no baseline and everyone goes "Ah yes! The veil is lifted!" and "The PRAT on these is wonderful!" And then someone does an EQ test by ear and everyone jumps in and says "Wait a minute! You aren't accurate to within a fraction of a dB!" Even if I had jerry rigged a dummy head and used a microphone, the same people would be complaining that I wasn't applying the proper correction curve because everyone has a slightly different reaction to Fletcher Munson, or that variation in ear canal or head shapes would alter the results. That's just counting angels dancing on the heads of pins. Some people just want to quibble for quibbling sake.

The point is, I used one technique to determine the basic response of these cans (tuning to acoustic music) and my buddy used another method (tuning to test tones) and both techniques and both of our sets of ears ended up at the same basic place... a 3 or 4dB boost at 3kHz and 6kHz. Two sets of ears, two different techniques, same basic results. I described exactly how we did it and folks can take it for what it is. Maybe we are off by a coupla few dB here and there. But once the amateur scientists in the crowd get a chance to dig out their wig heads and microphones and test the Oppos, the broad strokes conclusion we came to will probably stand- the Oppos have a remarkably flat and natural frequency response.

This sort of technical absolutism is why I really don't feel totally comfortable with either subjectivists or science nerds in home audio. My approach is to apply scientific principles to achieve great sound, but I don't kid myself... ultimately, I don't have to be any more accurate than my decidedly mortal ears. And they give me enough latitude that I shouldn't need to break a sweat to get good sound.


----------



## mikeaj

bigshot said:


> How much off?


 
  
 A few dB on good, consistent headphones. More than that, particularly in bass (due to seal, and everything's position dependent of course), on some others. If it were fractions of a dB, I wouldn't really bring it up other than as a curiosity.
  
 On a related note, I know I've seen diffuse field target for different people before, showing what the average gets to be based on the individual responses. I can't remember where, though. I guess it wouldn't be that hard to find.
  
 But anyway, see here (pdf is in the link):
 http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-relationship-between-perception-and.html
  

_vertical divisions are 5 dB_
  
 That's the measured response in the ear canal for another high-end planar magnetic headphone, the LCD-2, which produces more consistent responses than many other headphones. It shows left and right ear response for four different people, so I guess that's eight curves. That's say a 5 dB spread throughout the lower treble where the ear is most sensitive, so definitely on the order of magnitude of changes you were suggesting. Also, the spread is not consistent throughout the range. For example, one curve has around a 2 dB dip from around 1.5 kHz to 2.5 kHz, while some others show about a 5 dB dip from 1.5 kHz to 2.5 kHz, and these figures look pretty smoothed too.
  
 The top octave stuff is a crapshoot, but it doesn't matter much anyway, as you say. And even if the response is off in the 3 dB range here and there for some people maybe, that's still going to sound more or less right, at least way better than most headphones. 
  
 You can look through the results for the other headphones in the link.


----------



## bigshot

Well, based on my own thresholds (determined by playing with a sound editing program) I can discern 1dB with tones and 3dB with music. So that graph you posted there would sound pretty much flat to me with any of those colored lines. Can't tell what the horizontal scale is, but I'm assuming that dip low is in the last octave or so. A little more variation at the ends is fine because human hearing isn't as sensitive out at those extremes. Naturally, the lines diverge most in the extreme upper frequencies that don't even really exist in music.

My ears would be pretty happy with the headphones that graph represents. I imagine precise measuring of the Oppos isn't going to look too much different. My measurements didn't stray much more than 3dB in either direction... add a 2 or 3 dB variability because of my own peculiar ears and it might look exactly like that.


----------



## limpidglitch

I'm envious of your level-headedness bigshot, taking part in that conversation would really make my heart pump.

 I don't see any major fault in the methodology applied here.
 The crucial part is a common real world sound reference, doesn't much matter if it's from a chamber orchestra, a noisy high-way or restaurant chatter. As long as you adjust the sound reproduced by the transducers to match the real world sound as closely as possible, the response particularities of mine, yours or anyone elses ears doesn't matter one bit. It's beautifully simple, maybe too simple for people to accept it?


----------



## mikeaj

Maybe I'm just badly mistaken or explaining it poorly? I'm hardly an expert in HRTFs.
  
 There are two ways you might say the real-world response varies from person to person:
 1. factors attributing to body, head, ear, ear canal, etc. shape, resulting in different amplitudes and phases of sounds at the eardrum (see: concha gain, ear canal gain, pinna gain)
 2. factors from hearing loss
  
 (1) is affected differently when listening to sounds generated from out in space as opposed to originating from right next to your ears (headphones). This is because of the angle of incidence onto the ears and so on and how sound is funneled to the eardrum based on that. And on headphones it depends on positioning and seal too, in a nontrivial way. We'd expect (2) to be consistent no matter the source of the sound (I think?), so that isn't really important for this discussion unless a person has more acute loss in say the midrange.
  
 So the difference in response between real life / speakers vs. a particular headphone varies by the person, both at the eardrum and perceptually. This is the key point. If a headphone is calibrated to be perfectly flat (or sounding like any reference you want) for one person, it will not produce the same response for another, generally by some amount measured in whole numbers dB at important frequencies. That said, again, most headphones are off for everybody by more than a few dB at important ranges. Maybe this isn't a huge deal as driver matching and differences in response based on small positioning changes of the headphone on the head make about just as much of a difference or close to it. And yet, some people spend so much time worrying about much smaller effects from amps and DACs and whatnot.
  
 I wasn't taking offense at the methodology, just pointing out and quantifying this relevant caveat so the discussion can be a little more precise.
  
  


bigshot said:


> Can't tell what the horizontal scale is, but I'm assuming that dip low is in the last octave or so. A little more variation at the ends is fine because human hearing isn't as sensitive out at those extremes. Naturally, the lines diverge most in the extreme upper frequencies that don't even really exist in music.


  

 Yes, it's as you say. Like just about every audio graph with frequency on a log scale, those markers at the bottom are at 10^2, 10^3, and 10^4 Hz.


----------



## limpidglitch

mikeaj said:


> Maybe I'm just badly mistaken or explaining it poorly? I'm hardly an expert in HRTFs.
> 
> There are two ways you might say the real-world response varies from person to person:
> 1. factors attributing to body, head, ear, ear canal, etc. shape, resulting in different amplitudes and phases of sounds at the eardrum (see: concha gain, ear canal gain, pinna gain)
> ...


 

 Yup, as you say equalizing headphones present some particular challenges as compared to speakers, but I suspect the impact variances of our outer ear, ear canal, cochlea and brain have on our perception of sound mostly overwhelms that of the rest of our body. If it didn't, how could headphones and IEMs work as well for sound reproduction as they do?


----------



## bigshot

It really isn't complicated... it's very simple.

Assume that all my life with the shape of my particular noggin, I've experienced a 10dB boost at 5kHz... and you with yours have experienced a 10dB cut at 5kHz.

If we were both given a recording and were told to "make it sound natural", we would end up in *exactly* the same place, because I would EQ it flat so it would sound like a 10dB boost and you would EQ it flat so it sounded like a 10dB cut to you. "Natural" to us is what we've heard all our lives. It doesn't matter that your "natural" is different than my "natural". We both are hearing the same thing.

That is the nice thing about EQing by ear. You don't need to worry about compensation curves and the shape of your ear canal. You just make it sound *right*. EQing by ear isn't as accurate perhaps, because of the broader tolerance for error than using microphones. But since you're going to be listening to music with ears with the exact same broader tolerance, you don't need to worry about the error.

I find that equalization is the BEST THING you can do to improve the quality of sound in any system. But very few people take advantage of the benefits EQ can provide. Instead, they worry about minute (read: inaudible) differences between cables and amps and ignore equalization completely.

Why is this? It's simple... The reason is because tech heads make equalization sound much more complicated than it's worth. All of the arguments about compensation curves, dummy heads, ear canals and measurement microphones scare people off. They end up accepting imbalances or constantly upgrading randomly in search of a better response curve out of the box.

If folks knew that equalization isn't difficult and it didn't require a lot of testing equipment, perhaps they would give it a try. Learning to EQ by ear is primarily training your ear to recognize incremental improvements in sound quality by using natural sounding recordings as a baseline. I would think that hifi nuts would find that to be fun. Isn't that what this hobby is all about?


----------



## bigshot

Perhaps it's different with in ear monitors because how the little bit of plastic fits in my ear hole is different than the way it fits in yours. I don't own in ear monitors myself, but I am guessing that doesn't matter because sharing another person's IEM would be like sharing their toothbrush. Who wants to mix up someone else's earwax with their own?!


----------



## limpidglitch

bigshot said:


> It really isn't complicated... it's very simple.
> 
> Assume that all my life with the shape of my particular noggin, I've experienced a 10dB boost at 5kHz... and you with yours have experienced a 10dB cut at 5kHz.
> 
> ...


 

 I think all of us here are on the same page about this, but there is an interesting distinction between headphones and speakers regarding this method, at least theoretically.

 I'm sure you are aware of the corporal effect of low frequencies, how they're picked up by your body and travels through flesh and bone to your auditory system.
 This is mostly conjecture, but it seems reasonable to assume that different body types do this in slightly different ways. Big vs. small, short vs tall, fat vs. muscle etc.
 I'm pretty scrawny, and suspect my body therefore to be less effective in picking up these frequencies. This doesn't matter anything when I'm equalizing speakers. As long as I concentrate on making them sound the same as live sounds they will sound like live sounds to anyone, as you've pointed out. But what happens when I'm equalizing a set of headphones?
 With headphones you would be bypassing that corporal low frequency gain, and therefore feel the need to compensate somewhat with a low end lift in EQ. As I with my skinny body am accustomed to less low end, and therefore inclined to compensate less, my idea of flat would seem somewhat bass-light to someone with a bigger body. That is if my hypothesis holds.
  
 90% conjecture this, and I suspect the effect of this would be small to negligible, but you must admit that there at least possibilities for something here?

 And mikeaj, please let me know if I interpreted your post correctly.


----------



## mikeaj

limpidglitch said:


> And mikeaj, please let me know if I interpreted your post correctly.


 
  
 I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly either, but if the focus is just on missing bass response through the body, that's a separate issue (not what I'm talking about). I'm talking about response at the eardrum. You can read about the so-called "missing 6 dB effect" from headphones not giving you bass response through the body in various papers and discussions. Some people think it's valid to compensate on headphones by boosting bass; others don't and say the lack of bass felt through the body is how it is with headphones and can't / shouldn't be addressed. I'm sure there are other thoughts on it too.
  
  


bigshot said:


> If we were both given a recording and were told to "make it sound natural", we would end up in *exactly* the same place, because I would EQ it flat so it would sound like a 10dB boost and you would EQ it flat so it sounded like a 10dB cut to you. "Natural" to us is what we've heard all our lives. It doesn't matter that your "natural" is different than my "natural". We both are hearing the same thing.


  

 No, this is not true. 
  
 Let me back up. Why are all relatively neutral headphones actually balanced roughly like this (raw response)

 with the huge treble spike 2-4 kHz or so? That's because strapping speakers to your head essentially bypasses the gain of your ears that they naturally have (based on the shape) when sounds are coming from a distance. Hence, you need to compensate for that missing anatomical gain  by boosting the headphone response accordingly.
  
 A reasonable explanation is here, under "What is diffuse-field equalization?" at least in the first few paragraphs:
 http://north-america.beyerdynamic.com/service/faqs.html
  
 Though many argue about the correct target and think that DF is a little bright on most recordings and so on.
  
  
 A flat response out in free space or in a room (as can be measured by a microphone sitting out there too) gets colored by our anatomy. The colored version is what we hear as neutral, because it's what we're used to. That's the reference point. This reference point is thus different for each person. Let's say the response is R1(f) for you and R2(f) for me. Define it as the deviation from flat in dB at every audio frequency f. R1(f) in your eardrum sounds flat to you, and R2(f) in my eardrum sounds flat to me. So 0 would be flat. If you take speakers and equalize it so it sounds like R1(f) to you, what you've done is moved the response in the air to 0. Hence, when I listen, it will sound like R2(f) and sound flat to me.
  
 Headphone response is also colored by our anatomy, just to a lesser extent—importantly, in a different way than the sounds from farther away are. Call the response, the interaction from flat from a certain headphone, as H1(f) for you and H2(f) for me. R1(f) is not equal to H1(f), and R2(f) is not equal to H2(f). If you equalize headphones to sound like R1(f) at your eardrum, it will essentially be producing a sound represented by R1(f) - H1(f). In other words, when you listen to it, you get [R1(f) - H1(f)] + H1(f), which produces R1(f), which sounds right to you. When I listen to it, I get [R1(f) - H1(f)] + H2(f), which is likely different than R2(f). That's the issue. If R1(f) - H1(f) + H2(f) - R2(f) were say constant across different frequencies, no problem. However, it's going to be a little off and a different value at different frequencies. e.g. if it's 2 dB at 2 kHz and -3 dB at 2.7 kHz, that would not be good.
  
 This kind of glosses over some complexities and details, but hopefully not important ones. Also, I hopefully didn't make any mistakes.
  
  


bigshot said:


> I find that equalization is the BEST THING you can do to improve the quality of sound in any system. But very few people take advantage of the benefits EQ can provide. Instead, they worry about minute (read: inaudible) differences between cables and amps and ignore equalization completely.


  

 Agreed. EQ helps and I do it too and by ear. I'm not espousing a correct method, but I personally check response graphs if available for a general idea and then run sweeps to check the rest, especially in the treble. Getting it a little wrong isn't the end of the world either.
  


bigshot said:


> Perhaps it's different with in ear monitors because how the little bit of plastic fits in my ear hole is different than the way it fits in yours. I don't own in ear monitors myself, but I am guessing that doesn't matter because sharing another person's IEM would be like sharing their toothbrush. Who wants to mix up someone else's earwax with their own?!


  

 The sleeves that seal into one's ear canals can easily be removed and replaced, so that's technically not a huge issue maybe. Say if you were giving somebody your set to try, you would put on different tips first. But yes, the geometry and materials of the sleeves makes a significant difference on the sound, as does insertion depth and related issues. It's just like how different positioning of headphones on the head or speakers in a room (or listener position relative to speakers, what with off-axis response being not the same and more) makes a difference.


----------



## limpidglitch

mikeaj said:


> I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly either, but if the focus is just on missing bass response through the body, that's a separate issue (not what I'm talking about). I'm talking about response at the eardrum. You can read about the so-called "missing 6 dB effect" from headphones not giving you bass response through the body in various papers and discussions. Some people think it's valid to compensate on headphones by boosting bass; others don't and say the lack of bass felt through the body is how it is with headphones and can't / shouldn't be addressed. I'm sure there are other thoughts on it too.


 
  
 I haven't fine read the reports, but wasn't this basically what Sean Olive and Harman found through their studies?

 Other than that, what you are saying about our anatomy colouring our response to sound, and that headphones bypass some of these features, are basically what I was trying to get at.


----------



## mikeaj

limpidglitch said:


> I haven't fine read the reports, but wasn't this basically what Sean Olive and Harman found through their studies?


 
  
 Hm, I don't think so. Or rather, the suggestion is that a little extra bass is correct, but not for the reason you state.
  
 The hypothesis is this:


> Since stereo recordings are optimized to sound best through loudspeakers in rooms...
> 
> .. stereo recordings will sound best when reproduced through headphones that simulate the in-room response of a well-designed loudspeaker system calibrated in a reference listening room.


 
  
 and see this:


> Typical listening rooms are neither diffuse nor free field but somewhere in between, containing both direct, early and late reflected sounds Listening rooms provide bass reinforcement from standing waves and boundaries effects that are not accounted for in the diffuse and free-field target responses Therefore, headphones calibrated to DF and FF target responses will sound too bright and too thin in the bass.


----------



## limpidglitch

Ah, room gain. Gotcha.


----------



## bigshot

limpidglitch said:


> I'm sure you are aware of the corporal effect of low frequencies, how they're picked up by your body and travels through flesh and bone to your auditory system. This is mostly conjecture, but it seems reasonable to assume that different body types do this in slightly different ways. Big vs. small, short vs tall, fat vs. muscle etc.




The way I evaluate bass is to put on music with descending bass patterns. Reiner's Marche Slav is great for this. I listen for spots where a bass line that should be even all the way down suddenly becomes louder or softer. I even those out and with speakers, I have to finesse the handoff at 80Hz between the mains and the sub.

When it's smooth, then I balance the relative volume using orchestral music... making sure the bass doesn't stand out in front of the higher frequencies. Sub bass, bass, upper bass, lower mids, mids, etc... all hands off to each other smoothly.

Once all this is done, the corporal element you talk about should just fall into place naturally, but there is one more thing you need to do with speakers. Rooms have their own resonant frequency in the sub bass. You'll find a particular bass note that will make the walls shake. A quick notch right there fixes it. The lower the frequency the less EQ matters. At some point, bass stops being a musical note and becomes just rumble. The last octave or so just has to be balanced in overall volume, not so much for EQ. (the same goes for the last octave at the top end.)

With the Oppos, I was amazed at the bass, because it seemed to be perfectly balanced with all the other frequency ranges and the handoff in descending runs was perfectly even. I tried a few corrections, but ended up erasing them after listening to other recordings. I've never seen anything like it before. Usually the bass isn't that controlled. When my buddy ran tones on it, he started at the bottom and started working up octave by octave... no corrections. He determined that they were stone flat from 28Hz all the way up to 1.6kHz. That is a huge chunk of sound to have absolutely perfect!


----------



## bigshot

mikeaj said:


> No, this is not true. Let me back up. Why are all relatively neutral headphones actually balanced roughly like this (raw response)
> 
> 
> with the huge treble spike 2-4 kHz or so? That's because strapping speakers to your head essentially bypasses the gain of your ears that they naturally have (based on the shape) when sounds are coming from a distance. Hence, you need to compensate for that missing anatomical gain  by boosting the headphone response accordingly.




That graph is made using a microphone, so you have to apply a correction curve. If you determined the response by ear using tones, the sound of the tones would be even all the way across... no correction needed.... measured flat vs audibly flat. If you graph audibly flat, it's a straight line- correction built in.

I always EQ by ear, so Fletcher Munson and ear canal shape doesn't matter. All of that is already incorporated into my hearing. Simpler that way.


----------



## bigshot

> Typical listening rooms are neither diffuse nor free field but somewhere in between, containing both direct, early and late reflected sounds Listening rooms provide bass reinforcement from standing waves and boundaries effects that are not accounted for in the diffuse and free-field target responses Therefore, headphones calibrated to DF and FF target responses will sound too bright and too thin in the bass.




Again, if you tune by ear, all this is built in to your normal human hearing. The baseline would be audibly flat, whether or not a microphone would measure it as a flat line.

It's really SO much easier to EQ by ear. It removes a lot of guesswork and theory and arguments over what correction curve is right and what is wrong. You use your ear to listen to a tone all the way across and the correction is all built in.


----------



## mikeaj

Just to be clear, I'm agreeing you want to EQ audibly flat for yourself. But that it's not necessarily quite as accurate if given to someone else to listen to (on headphones).
  
 The original context was the not-quite-so-hypothetical that someone were to release a headphone that ended up with a tuning that sounds flat to you. Now others wonder how it might sound for them. I'm saying that you can't guarantee that it will sound flat for them based on what you heard, even though it sounds flat for you. It'll probably be close or perhaps match even better than that for some others, but there is some error tolerance level or uncertainty due to how these things work. And perhaps more so, if you allow that nobody can tune headphones perfectly at every frequency, and your by-ear tuning could readily be a dB or two off here and there. I don't think you can dismiss a bit of skepticism out of hand, like you could if you did the same on speakers.
  
  
 By the way, these days pretty much all the popular planar magnetic headphones are flat from ~30 Hz until the 1 kHz region or so. It's a feature of the competitors too. Apparently with a large enough magnet array and the technology, that's what you get without an incredible amount of effort. It's the rest that's difficult, seemingly.


----------



## bigshot

mikeaj said:


> Just to be clear, I'm agreeing you want to EQ audibly flat for yourself. But that it's not necessarily quite as accurate if given to someone else to listen to (on headphones).




I don't think that's the case. Audibly flat is audibly flat.

If I have normal hearing and I use an equalizer to balance response using a tone, playing music through those cans will sound natural to me and everyone else, even those with less than perfect hearing. I can't say that headphones tuned to flat response would sound flat to someone with a hearing defect... but I can say that it would sound natural... the same as any other sound in the real world through their ears. And that is the goal of headphones. Headphone curves can't be expected to act as hearing aids to correct biological audio imbalances.

The only time that tuning to tones wouldn't result in natural sound is if the person doing the tuning has a hearing defect themselves. When I EQed the Oppos, my buddy and I checked each other to make sure we were both hearing the same thing. The only range we can't speak for is above 15kHz, because our hearing may not be flat up that high any more, but those frequencies really don't matter to music.


----------



## darinf

IEM and CIEM manufacturers must have it really rough. If the sound is not being affected at all by the user's pinnae or HRTF and going straight into the ear canal, then who knows what people are going to hear. In that case flat to one person could be drastically not flat to another if their ear shapes are drastically different.
  
 I am assuming based on the theories expressed here. I am not expert at all.


----------



## bigshot

I would think the closer the transducer is to your ear guts, the easier it would be to control. Speakers are tough because of all the space around them in the room. Headphones would be much easier than that, because there is no space between the ears and the transducer. In ear would be even easier, because you're bypassing the outer ear entirely and shooting the sound straight at the eardrum.


----------



## higbvuyb

darinf said:


> IEM and CIEM manufacturers must have it really rough. If the sound is not being affected at all by the user's pinnae or HRTF and going straight into the ear canal, then who knows what people are going to hear. In that case flat to one person could be drastically not flat to another if their ear shapes are drastically different.
> 
> I am assuming based on the theories expressed here. I am not expert at all.


 
 Either:
 1. they use an averaged HRTF, which does not apply to everyone
 2. they use an 'expert' who 'tunes' it to their ear (not yours)  without a good reference
 3. They string parts together and stick them into a housing and sell it to some poor fellow
  
 However, the expectations of IEM users are low enough that 3 is considered an acceptable practice.
  
 The deviation in HRTF is not really that big - Hammershoi and Moller in 2008 looked at a whole bunch of studies with 10-50 people measured, and they were pretty consistent below 2khz, with a standard deviation of around 3dB at most.


----------



## mikeaj

bigshot said:


> Again, if you tune by ear, all this is built in to your normal human hearing. The baseline would be audibly flat, whether or not a microphone would measure it as a flat line.
> 
> It's really SO much easier to EQ by ear. It removes a lot of guesswork and theory and arguments over what correction curve is right and what is wrong. You use your ear to listen to a tone all the way across and the correction is all built in.


 
  
 How do you refute the premise in this earlier post (the two paragraphs starting from "A flat response out in free space")?
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/670056/skeptico-saloon-an-objectivist-joint/600#post_10436276
  
 Short version: every person's HRTF is different, so the real-world "baseline" to aim for with headphones varies by person. The "correction" is not the same for each person, so anyone correcting for themselves doesn't necessarily correct it for anyone else. (not by a huge amount but by some whole numbers dB maybe in the treble)
  
 If you have the time, I'd appreciate you going through the argument to pick through it, ask for clarifications, and/or point out what's wrong, rather than handwaving the whole thing off. Also, see above post by higbvuyb.


----------



## castleofargh

didn't olive&welti's work this last year also show that most people hear flat "pretty much" the same way without regard of age or continent?


----------



## bigshot

mikeaj said:


> How do you refute the premise in this earlier post (the two paragraphs starting from "A flat response out in free space")?




Oh man! That second paragraph is a doozy! I can't make head nor tail out of that, I'm afraid.

Personal hearing differences and defects are like a personal filter on sound. It colors what we hear the exact same way everywhere... in headphones, in the real world, with speakers... everything. Flat response is flat response. It's what the tweeting of a bird or the roar of a jet engine sounds like in real life. We might hear it filtered through our own hearing defects, but it doesn't change what the sound itself is. When we hear that natural sound, it is always filtered through our personal coloration the same. So if we take natural sound through our personal filter and compare it to a response curve we've balanced through our personal filter, the sound will be exactly the same.

Again... Hand me a set of headphones and an equalizer, and I will balance the sound through my own filter, but I will be aiming at a target that is real life through my filter. The two filters will cancel each other out and underneath my own personal perception, I'll end up with an audibly flat response curve through anyone's personal filter.

People with relatively normal hearing don't vary all that much anyway. A dB difference here or there makes no difference at all. When I was EQing the PM-1s using tones, my friend would do a sweep through an octave and he would hand the headphones to me so I could hear what he was hearing. We both were hearing the same thing. When we were all done, the corrections we made evened out the response and it sounded flat to both of us. We both have normal hearing, so that shouldn't be surprising.

There are people who have a vested interest in claiming that flat response isn't an achievable goal. Most of them are manufacturers who can't build to the tolerances required, or home stereo fans who don't want to expend the effort to do it. Achieving a balanced frequency response isn't something you flip a switch and it's there, and it isn't something you can go out and buy. The only way you can get it is through work, analytical listening and experimentation.

But I can tell you from personal experience that achieving an audibly flat response *is* possible, and once I achieve flat for me, it's flat for all the friends who listen to my stereo too. Music played with a flat response sounds a LOT better than randomly imbalanced too. It really is worth the trouble.


----------



## swspiers

bigshot said:


> There are people who have a vested interest in claiming that flat response isn't an achievable goal. Most of them are manufacturers who can't build to the tolerances required, or home stereo fans who don't want to expend the effort to do it. Achieving a balanced frequency response isn't something you flip a switch and it's there, and it isn't something you can go out and buy. The only way you can get it is through work, analytical listening and experimentation.


 
 Users of Audyssey room correction and Anthem's ARC may dispute this: it can be bought, and comes standard issue with most current AVR's, with varying degress of accuracy.
  
 for the record, I prefer your method.


----------



## bigshot

I haven't tried those... but I did use the auto equalization process built into my Yamaha AV receiver. It identified an overlap in the crossover from mains to sub, but it royally messed up the rest. It even dialed down my sub so it wasn't even putting out sound any more.

My sound mixer friend has had experience with a bunch of pro auto equalization devices for live sound PA systems. He says they don't work very well. He goes back with tones afterwards and finds obvious imbalances that the microphone based system missed. He thinks it's something to do with trying to balance everything at once with pink noise as opposed to balancing a frequency at a time with a tone... maybe masking or something.


----------



## bigshot

Looks like the doofus who was dogging me over in headphone forum has followed me back to Sound Science because he's been banned from the PM-1 thread and can't insult me over there any more. Sorry about that folks!


----------



## bigshot

Oh by the way... I had a fun surprise last week. One of my media server Drobo drives took a dump. 9TB of material, including my whole music library with a nice red blinking light and warning error alert. I popped in a new 3TB drive to replace the dead one and sweat bullets for four days while it recovered data. Today, I was happy to see that everything is back to normal and the drives are happy again.
  
 Stewardship over 120TB of precious data can be a nerve racking hobby!


----------



## swspiers

Love my Drobo. I'm glad to read that it works as advertised! Why did it take 4 days?


----------



## bigshot

Rebuilding a lost drive takes a long time. A 3TB drive takes 117 hours. A 4TB drive takes the better part of a week! I don't mind, because the data is theoretically still accessible (even though I'm too afraid to use the drive while it's backing itself up!) I can tell you that for the past four days I've been biting my fingernails to nubs waiting for the nice green lights to come back!


----------



## bigshot

I bowed out of the PM-1 threads over in the headphones forum a while back. Now it seems an old locked thread has been reopened and people are being chastised for posting measurements rather than "impressions". It used to be that the only difference between sound science and the rest of headfi was double blind testing. Now it seems like any kind of technical talk that sounds confusing to the uneducated masses is off limits.


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> I bowed out of the PM-1 threads over in the headphones forum a while back. Now it seems an old locked thread has been reopened and people are being chastised for posting measurements rather than "impressions". It used to be that the only difference between sound science and the rest of headfi was double blind testing. Now it seems like any kind of technical talk that sounds confusing to the uneducated masses is off limits.


 

 Could you be more specific?
  
 If not for sound science, I wouldn't visit this site.


----------



## bigshot

Here's the thread and here is a quote to consider...
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/685704/oppo-pm-1-a-new-planar-magnetic-headphone/1455#post_10461887
  


> Guys, like I said before: Listen to some music with a pair and correlate that to any measurements. Talking about measurements without listening to the sound is almost a complete waste of time, especially to those people who want to read people's impressions and not a bunch of confusing technicalities. I'd strongly suggest that if you don't have either impressions or something useful to comment or ask about people's impressions then you hold back on posting and I'll open up Jude's original thread for all that discussion


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> Here's the thread and here is a quote to consider...
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/685704/oppo-pm-1-a-new-planar-magnetic-headphone/1455#post_10461887


 

 I see what you mean.
  
 Yes, shouldn't clog up a thread with unreliable talk of measurements.  Stick to the highly reliable listening impressions people want to hear about.  Those are only effected by mental state, background noise, listening levels (everyone listens at a different level likely), sighted bias, a propensity for the brain to fill in differences that aren't there etc. etc. etc.  Much more reliable that.  That is why I avoid almost completely the rest of the forums outside of Sound Science.


----------



## bigshot

measurements = complete waste of time
impressions = useful!


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

I don't understand how you guys can box yourselves into just one subforum in a headphone enthusiast forum. One which barely gets any recognition or talk from engineers from companies and very few actual topics  (non subjective vs objective discussion) unless it is a recycle of discussions before.  It seems like a waste of time if none of the products around at least interest you in innovation and performance.


----------



## wakibaki

kamijoismyhero said:


> I don't understand how you guys can box yourselves into just one subforum in a headphone enthusiast forum. One which barely gets any recognition or talk from engineers from companies and very few actual topics  (non subjective vs objective discussion) unless it is a recycle of discussions before.  It seems like a waste of time if none of the products around at least interest you in innovation and performance.




....errrr, 'box yourselves in'??? I think you've got something a bit bassackwards there. Perhaps when you sort out that little confusion in your mind we could have a conversation.

w


----------



## esldude

kamijoismyhero said:


> I don't understand how you guys can box yourselves into just one subforum in a headphone enthusiast forum. One which barely gets any recognition or talk from engineers from companies and very few actual topics  (non subjective vs objective discussion) unless it is a recycle of discussions before.  It seems like a waste of time if none of the products around at least interest you in innovation and performance.


 

 Depends on your idea of being boxed in.  Having people put forth ideas not just incredible, but impossible while not being allowed to refute them with real facts, knowledge and science without getting banned seems rather confining.  Now the imagination knows no bounds.  So maybe Sound imagination forums are more lively and such.  Products based upon the imagination too.  Imagination is good if checked against reality for innovation.  Without that reality check not so much as it results in faux-innovation.


----------



## bigshot

kamijoismyhero said:


> I don't understand how you guys can box yourselves into just one subforum in a headphone enthusiast forum. One which barely gets any recognition or talk from engineers from companies and very few actual topics  (non subjective vs objective discussion) unless it is a recycle of discussions before.  It seems like a waste of time if none of the products around at least interest you in innovation and performance.


 
  
 I learn an awful lot from the folks in the Sound Science forum. In the headphones forum, everyone just recites model numbers, that mean nothing to me, along with vague poetry describing their sound, which means even less.
  
 Here I can ask a question about how things work and get a knowledgeable answer to my question. Sometimes I even understand the answers!


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Quote:


bigshot said:


> I learn an awful lot from the folks in the Sound Science forum. In the headphones forum, everyone just recites model numbers, that mean nothing to me, along with vague poetry describing their sound, which means even less.
> 
> Here I can ask a question about how things work and get a knowledgeable answer to my question. Sometimes I even understand the answers!


 
  


esldude said:


> Depends on your idea of being boxed in.  Having people put forth ideas not just incredible, but impossible while not being allowed to refute them with real facts, knowledge and science without getting banned seems rather confining.  Now the imagination knows no bounds.  So maybe Sound imagination forums are more lively and such.  Products based upon the imagination too.  Imagination is good if checked against reality for innovation.  Without that reality check not so much as it results in faux-innovation.


 
  
 You can learn and discuss all that in a different forum, one where there is less restriction or mod interferences (I have had more than one moronic interaction with a mod so I know of their faulty work). I just don't understand why headfi only when there are only very few people that posts in this subforum. That is what I mean in "box yourself" or "confining". Is this really the only subforum you guys can find, surely there are more like this with more engaging people that posts actively. Hence, I don't see the point of crying about your experiences reading impressions which you can't relate to.
  
 I am a man of science myself and part of the reason I keep checking on headfi is the innovation manufacturers or engineers try to make. Unfortunately, I didn't enroll in audio related engineering so my interests in new audio products is of genuine nature and also since new tech is always interesting anyway. A big one that has intrigued me is the current Oppo headphone and its design. It is unconventional and makes me wonder how it is supposed to sound or offer something different  from the typical planar magnetics. Even before that, planar magnetic design and beyerdynamic tesla tech was interesting as I have never heard of it before as I was used to seeing dynamic drivers. For IEM side, freqphase, multiple BAs and hybrids has peaked my interests. Sure you can assume what they will sound like with a freq response but there are countless that aren't. I get confused as well of the descriptions people use but it is not that big of a deal.
  
 If people's impressions bother you, then can try to look or ask for a direct comparisons of products you know well. People will typically try to help you to get a better idea of how it sounds like. There is some merit in direct comparisons given they were reviewed the same way. Just be a decent-friendly person.
  
 Also, contrary to the consensus here that refuting claims will get you banned, I see it more often than not that the one that gets banned are brash individuals. I don't take a liking of negative individuals especially when they try to associate themselves to people of science. It gives a lot of bad reputation which is most likely what you experience as a results of trying to provide technical explanations. It is unfortunate to see this is the case in headfi most likely spurred by a few brash individuals acting in the name of science. There is a difference in asserting your refutes with evidence to insulting another of their intelligence or similar acts to prove your point. Bigshot's way in handling the oppo thread was in my opinion the proper way, some of the discussion was just way too off topic. 
  
Lastly, I don't include products such as 10k cables in mind. If a product tries to sell itself past an already well proven scientific fact or theory, then you can ignore such product and leave the people who enjoy such products at peace. I barely go into the cable section myself. How hard is it to just leave people alone? There is no need to patronize people behind their backs or threads which they will never check. I am saying this based on my personal sets of ethics. Sorry, if that offends any of you.
  
  
  


wakibaki said:


> ....errrr, 'box yourselves in'??? I think you've got something a bit bassackwards there. Perhaps when you sort out that little confusion in your mind we could have a conversation.
> 
> w


 
 Sorry, English is not my first language and sometimes my grammar is messed up. I try to explain myself better above.


----------



## bigshot

There aren't a lot of us, but we're a happy little family. Agree about the mods.


----------



## esldude

kamijoismyhero said:


> You can learn and discuss all that in a different forum, one where there is less restriction or mod interferences (I have had more than one moronic interaction with a mod so I know of their faulty work). I just don't understand why headfi only when there are only very few people that posts in this subforum. That is what I mean in "box yourself" or "confining". Is this really the only subforum you guys can find, surely there are more like this with more engaging people that posts actively. Hence, I don't see the point of crying about your experiences reading impressions which you can't relate to.
> 
> I am a man of science myself and part of the reason I keep checking on headfi is the innovation manufacturers or engineers try to make. Unfortunately, I didn't enroll in audio related engineering so my interests in new audio products is of genuine nature and also since new tech is always interesting anyway. A big one that has intrigued me is the current Oppo headphone and its design. It is unconventional and makes me wonder how it is supposed to sound or offer something different  from the typical planar magnetics. Even before that, planar magnetic design and beyerdynamic tesla tech was interesting as I have never heard of it before as I was used to seeing dynamic drivers. For IEM side, freqphase, multiple BAs and hybrids has peaked my interests. Sure you can assume what they will sound like with a freq response but there are countless that aren't. I get confused as well of the descriptions people use but it is not that big of a deal.
> 
> ...


 

 Hey, your English seems quite good to me.  Wakibaki wasn't referring to your English just the idea we are the confined ones ( I believe don't wish to put words in his mouth if they are wrong). 
  
 Now sometimes I can be reasonably beguiling other times after years and years of the same tired old arguments I lack patience.  And with some people I just don't care to bother.  I am sure I seem too mean sometimes.  Not saying that is a good example, just a bit of an explanation, and only in regard to myself.  I have asked before what is the kind friendly way to tell someone they are wrong or don't understand what they are claiming because their claims are wrong?  There are some better ways than others, but in the end people don't wish to be told that.  They wish to revert to "my opinion is as good as everyone elses"  idea.  Sorry, but sometimes that simply isn't so.  And not saying I know it all, I don't.  Most of what I know by far I learned from others.  But trying to figure out technical things related to well understood physics doesn't help if you insist on magical results.  Trying avoid all the top ten regular counter-arguments here.  I will touch on one more.  No matter what you say someone will ask as if the ultimate arbiter "how would you know you haven't heard it?".  Well some claims, with some other information don't require hearing to refute.  And hearing is limited in its discriminating limits in many ways. 
  
 So yeah, Bigshot does a good job, better than I about stuff.  I like Wakibaki's no BS, no-nonsense approach, but he has been banned a time or two as a result.  Wrongly in my opinion.
  
 I do feel a little slighted by your statement, "Just be a decent-friendly person."  From what I have seen most are.  When you disagree there is some slight conflict and I see no evidence those of a differing approach are more decent or more friendly.  There is just more of them. So easier to find agreement as a group pursuing good sound in a way no one can agree or disagree with in any meaningful way.  Also a way that pretty much gets you nowhere.   I don't see a lot of patronizing posts behind people's backs here.  Mostly, when allowed, the discussion is factual and helpful to each other to understand things. 
  
 As for missing innovative things, I do read some other forums. Especially in transducers it is potentially a great time for all.  As for getting people to discuss who can compare equipment like or similar to what I have used it has limited benefits.  When I ask about headphone X vs headphone A and get told you will never know what it is capable of sounding like until you get expensive uber-cable B to connect to it......well what am I to make of that?  I have been there and done that in that world with those ideas.  Don't need to waste time, money or effort doing it anymore.  Not crying about the existence of such comments, just not interested in them either. 
  
 There are surprisingly few forums you can post simply in a rational manner.  You will either get booted for being disruptive (even when decent and friendly posting simply what you think without being argumentative to others).  Or people ridicule you as not having good hearing, not having good equipment, not knowing good sound or not spending enough money (no Big Boy toys??).


----------



## bigshot

I've been banned wongly too. I've generated enough page views for this site that they should be paying me instead of abusing me, but I don't take it personally any more.


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> I've been banned wongly too. I've generated enough page views for this site that they should be paying me instead of abusing me, but I don't take it personally any more.


 

 Must have been when I was not much involved on this site.  Though a member for long I didn't visit it much for many years. 
  
 I know what you mean.  Another site I frequented more I have a few threads I started which were among the most participated in and longest running of any there.  Generated tremendous hits.  Yet I believe most people there would be happy for me to disappear.  A fellow poster in my defense after I was being called a troll, did say I must be a popular one based upon the response to my threads and other comments. 
  
 Controversy always does generate views.  Not the reason I post anything, but obvious in hindsight it is true.  Bigshot don't need no big boy toys to be a worthwhile poster.


----------



## bigshot

I gots BIG SHOT toys!


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

esldude said:


> Hey, your English seems quite good to me.  Wakibaki wasn't referring to your English just the idea we are the confined ones ( I believe don't wish to put words in his mouth if they are wrong).
> 
> Now sometimes I can be reasonably beguiling other times after years and years of the same tired old arguments I lack patience.  And with some people I just don't care to bother.  I am sure I seem too mean sometimes.  Not saying that is a good example, just a bit of an explanation, and only in regard to myself.  I have asked before what is the kind friendly way to tell someone they are wrong or don't understand what they are claiming because their claims are wrong?  There are some better ways than others, but in the end people don't wish to be told that.  They wish to revert to "my opinion is as good as everyone elses"  idea.  Sorry, but sometimes that simply isn't so.  And not saying I know it all, I don't.  Most of what I know by far I learned from others.  But trying to figure out technical things related to well understood physics doesn't help if you insist on magical results.  Trying avoid all the top ten regular counter-arguments here.  I will touch on one more.  No matter what you say someone will ask as if the ultimate arbiter "how would you know you haven't heard it?".  Well some claims, with some other information don't require hearing to refute.  And hearing is limited in its discriminating limits in many ways.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have seen posts where people don't want to believe factual arguments. I simply take note to ignore those people afterwards including their impressions as it would be too heavily biased in expectations. This is also what I do if they are cable believers.
  
 What I meant by being decent when interacting is to avoid pushing level matching or DBT tests too authoritatively when asking for things such as comparisons or dismiss a review since it does not meet proper test methods. I don't mean in argument terms (see my English is not good at times still). In my opinion it is disrespectful to the reviewer, especially those that are just enthusiastic about the product and took the time to write a review and comparison. I have found that the best way is to take everything with very little truth unless you have found a reviewer that matches your experience with a certain product and somewhat describes what they have heard reflect similarly to what you have heard. This is why impression, even though they vary subjectively, is important when looking for reviewers and a rough description of what the headphone's sound signature is like.
  
 It is unfortunate that there isn't a bigger forum of this kind. I don't think that you have to spend much to share experiences with others. I have heard other more expensive headphones and other various types of headphones just to get a feel of what people talk about and in my opinion that is enough to determine if they are desirable or match what people hear to what I heard. I think people just like an interaction with others that have made an effort in trying out various headphones or equipment. This is a headphone enthusiast forum after all and such trying out different headphones is a good thing.
  
 I might also add, reviews or impressions where there is a large introduction on the product, much like what project86 does, is insightful on the company producing the headphone and its quality. Reviews can offer more than sound impressions.
  
 EDIT: oh I just see now, you have been here a long time. In which case what I say is probably what you have already known for a long time.


----------



## bigshot

Level matching is massively important. A slight difference can totally throw off a comparison test. It doesn't have to necessarily be measured by a machine though. Within tolerances of human hearing is fine.


----------



## esldude

kamijoismyhero said:


> I have seen posts where people don't want to believe factual arguments. I simply take note to ignore those people afterwards including their impressions as it would be too heavily biased in expectations. This is also what I do if they are cable believers.
> 
> What I meant by being decent when interacting is to avoid pushing level matching or DBT tests too authoritatively when asking for things such as comparisons or dismiss a review since it does not meet proper test methods. I don't mean in argument terms (see my English is not good at times still). In my opinion it is disrespectful to the reviewer, especially those that are just enthusiastic about the product and took the time to write a review and comparison. I have found that the best way is to take everything with very little truth unless you have found a reviewer that matches your experience with a certain product and somewhat describes what they have heard reflect similarly to what you have heard. This is why impression, even though they vary subjectively, is important when looking for reviewers and a rough description of what the headphone's sound signature is like.
> 
> ...


 

 Well level matching is simply of central and over-riding importance.  It just is.  Without it differences must be truly gross to be noted with any accuracy and reliability.  Like a highly bloated bass or super hyped or super rolled off treble.  For finer comparison you must have level matching.  Even in sighted, uncontrolled casual comparisons with friends when I get them to level match it has made them stop and say "not so different as I thought".  So do I throw that out just for friendliness sake?  Or do I without being abrasive keep reminding everyone that level matching will clear some things up so please do it? 
  
 I believe if I can get only one important thing across to people about comparing audio equipment, the necessity of level matching would be the most worthwhile. 
  
 Now headphones in some ways are the hardest thing to compare in all of audio in my opinion.  The measurements tell you less than with any other component.  Frequency response effects are the most notable thing in the sound signature.  Any headphone sits on your ear or in your ear canal a bit differently than someone else.  Which can make for a different sound character at the finer levels of discrimination.  And yet more than any other component listening to other people's impression in general of the sound signature may be most valuable.  So narrowing the field as to what to audition is quite useful.  It is all the turmoil over all the other parts that simply interfere with that.


----------



## bigshot

There's something I am curious about... Here in sound science, we seem to have a steady stream of buffoons who bounce in acting like they know it all, but in reality don't know anything. They all start out pompous, then get mad when we gently correct them, then start throwing insults around while announcing that *we're* being rude to them. Then they walk off in a huff.

This seems to be a pattern. Are these people just not the sharpest knife in the drawer, or is this some elaborate trolling technique? It's gotten so I can't even separate these people in my head. Are they all the same person? Why do they come into the sound science forum if sound science makes them mad? It makes no sense to me.


----------



## esldude

Why they come to enlighten us benighted souls.  We haven't heard what they have or we would believe what they do.  Or so it seems to me.


----------



## swspiers

bigshot said:


> There's something I am curious about... Here in sound science, we seem to have a steady stream of buffoons who bounce in acting like they know it all, but in reality don't know anything. They all start out pompous, then get mad when we gently correct them, then start throwing insults around while announcing that *we're* being rude to them. Then they walk off in a huff.
> 
> This seems to be a pattern. Are these people just not the sharpest knife in the drawer, or is this some elaborate trolling technique? It's gotten so I can't even separate these people in my head. Are they all the same person? Why do they come into the sound science forum if sound science makes them mad? It makes no sense to me.


 
 It's worse than that, and I presume I am not in the aforementioned category.
  
 The buffoons then go into the wider community and 'represent' objectivist points of view, which creates distrust toward any scientific point of view.  I am convinced that part of the resistance encountered is due to prior experiences with bad-players who create all sorts of drama.
  
 I will work on a regression to illustrate (just kidding)


----------



## mikeaj

bigshot said:


> I've been banned wongly too. I've generated enough page views for this site that they should be paying me instead of abusing me, but I don't take it personally any more.


 
  
 Nah, you're funneling page views to the wrong section.


----------



## bigshot

mikeaj said:


> Nah, you're funneling page views to the wrong section.




Now that you mention it, it explains the situation perfectly.


----------



## Muinarc

That PM-1 thread is a hoot Bigshot. Maybe post the below image in there lol.


----------



## bigshot

I want my stereo system to have all the big numbers in it!


----------



## bigshot

Oh man... another amazing comment in the Oppo thread. A fella with a lot of technical knowledge points to three headphone frequency response charts, all with the exact same curve to within 4dB and says those all sound completely different... and then compares two cans with a 15dB difference on the whole bottom half of the frequency range and says they sound the same. When I ask him what he's looking at in the charts he posted to make those determinations, he says it's "driver loading". Now I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that means the direction the sound comes out of the driver to go into your ears. I can't imagine that throwing half the frequency spectrum off by 15dB and make three headphones with identical response sound totally different. Does anyone know just how big of an impact "driver loading" has? (in dB) I would guess it would be easy to measure with tone sweeps by ear.
  
 Edit: OK, now they say a 15dB difference in the heart of the treble is "measuring the same". I don't understand this at all. Why even bother with specs if they don't represent the sound?
  
 For what it's worth, now that I've seen the "officialish" frequency response chart for the Oppo PM-1s, it pretty much accurately depicts how they sound- stone flat throughout the key frequencies. The only area I'd question is their measurement of the boost at 9kHz. I showed that at 6kHz on two different sets of PM-1s, and it was about 8dB less of a boost. That's a quibble that wouldn't really affect the sound much though.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

I don't see the part you are talking about, deleted again? You should try a HE-500, its even flatter in freq response (in terms of treble anyway) and cost 2x less than the Oppo


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bigshot said:


> That graph is made using a microphone, so you have to apply a correction curve. If you determined the response by ear using tones, the sound of the tones would be even all the way across... no correction needed.... measured flat vs audibly flat. If you graph audibly flat, it's a straight line- correction built in.
> 
> I always EQ by ear, so Fletcher Munson and ear canal shape doesn't matter. All of that is already incorporated into my hearing. Simpler that way.




I might be a bit late for this but...

I think you can be dismissive about equal loudness curves because you don't actually EQ by tone sweeps (you EQ by music listening correct?)

I actually EQ by tone sweeps and I do need to dial in my equal loudness curve before EQing any headphones.

A simple illustration should suffice to show what's going on:


From left to right: EQ I dialled in on a pair of earphones (in this case the Philips SHE3580), EQ I dialled in to compensate for the equal loudness curve (swooping up and up in the bass), and finally the program I'm using to produce tone sweeps.

Tone sweeps at a reference loudness (reaching what I'd call an average musical volume for me at 1kHz) have to pass through both a headphone correction EQ AND an equal loudness curve EQ to have a consistent loudness throughout the range. Here's my equal loudness curve this year, as accurate as I can make it using reference earphones EQed to best musical performance for reference:


Note that the upslope in the bass is nowhere near as steep as an ISO standard equal loudness curve--it's interesting that this slope seemed to go down as I got more used to listening to tone sweeps--but it's still over 10dBs. The upslope on the right shows my age  even with this slope I have to give up on targeting equal loudness after 11.5kHz or so.

I think the issue is complicated by the fact that people who try to EQ by tone sweeps without an equal loudness compensation curve "learn" that a bass tone that sounds weaker is actually "just as loud" as that 1kHz tone until their brains' perception of equal loudness tones changes to one that is actually almost equal power throughout the range. Or they EQ with this skewed equal loudness methodology and deem the resulting sound to be natural. Or some combination of the two.


----------



## bigshot

I don't use tone sweeps myself. My buddy who is a sound engineer does. I did a pass using my EQing to music method with an equalizer and took note of my corrections, then he came in and did tone sweeps by ear. 
  
 My friend did two passes of 1 1/2 octave sweeps from low to high. The second pass was louder than the first. Probably peak listening level. He tweaked the EQ at both volume levels, then let me check an octave and a half at a time. I didn't pay attention to how he did the final pass, but it involved comparing different parts of the frequency range. By the end, he was doing huge sweeps across large chunks. He might have a sense for loudness compensation built into his head.
  
 When we compared our notes, he was able to find more tiny bumps of 1 or 2dB in the treble than I did, but the two large bumps (in the range of 4dB if that can be called large) at 3kHz and 6kHz were on both of our notes. The fact that we both used different means and ended up in the same place made me think we did something right...


----------



## dripf

After following the Stax thread for a month, I no longer have an antipathy for audio snake oil salesmen. The average hobbyist has no interest in the science contained within his music, equipment, and listening. We *demand* to be able to dump our money!
  
 My highlights of the thread:
  

A complete evasion on the limitations and requirements of electrostatic amplifiers. Pages of wittering on the topic and nothing to show for it. Like a pack of dogs being fed peanut butter. Even the one or two who have designed electrostatic amplifiers do not care to authoritatively answer what should interest them. A far cry from another forum I frequent about displays, where experts always throw in for serious questions. That forum is no conservatory either; ownership has just as many commercial interests as this, too.
Stax developed their own diffuse field equalisation for their headphones, and I have the exact parameters! My convolution engine is compiled and poised for action. I won't even have to listen to sine sweeps to get a linear response. However, users tell me either that it sounds bad, or EQ adds IMD.
To get around this, people irreversibly butcher modify their two thousand dollar headphones to change the sound signature, always for the better I am told.
Another option is to simply sell and purchase new headphones constantly, for life, even though the model they have now is distortion free and reasonably linear, making it perfectly suited for EQ by even one parameter alone.
We need to work on our interconnects. I'd call them morons but my post would be disappeared.
The new model sucks. This is what really disgusted me. You have to either buy vintage or one of the big toys. Were it not for Rin Choi's work showing far more similarity than difference between models thirty years apart, I would have made a concession on this.
  
  
 By and large, we are talking about bumbling and incurious people owning three thousand dollar systems. I would be offended by the behaviour of my customers if I were operating a serious sound company.


----------



## SilverEars

About electrostatics though, do they have the lowest amount of distortion for a headphone?  Does dynamics have most?  Anybody have a link that goes in depth of information on different types of drivers and their characteristics?


----------



## bigshot

dripf wins the prize for best post of the day!


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

silverears said:


> About electrostatics though, do they have the lowest amount of distortion for a headphone?  Does dynamics have most?  Anybody have a link that goes in depth of information on different types of drivers and their characteristics?


 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/headphone-data-sheet-downloads
  
Examine all the headphones you have interests in and you can draw conclusions to your questions.


----------



## dripf

silverears said:


> About electrostatics though, do they have the lowest amount of distortion for a headphone?  Does dynamics have most?  Anybody have a link that goes in depth of information on different types of drivers and their characteristics?


 
  
 The primary difference is the absence of rising low frequency distortion usually present in dynamic models. Otherwise, the best models of all technologies seem to float at 0.1% THD+N. Is this the detection limit?
  
 Decay characteristic is where electrostatic and isodynamic regularly obsolete the dynamic offerings. You often see resonances in CSD plots for dynamic models. Problem is, there seems to be poor agreement between results. The importance and perceptual effect of resonances isn't well explained either.


----------



## SilverEars

Anyway, thanks for the info guys, it's a fantastic reference.  I want to thank Tyll with his efforts to provide this info.  Yes, dynamics have low end increase in distortion.  It's apparent in the square waves for low frequencies.  I do like the Hifiman measurements, and also the Sony EX-1000 which I thought sounded well.  I have the LCD-2 the THD is leveled under 1% and also there is no resonance with it as it's purely resisitive load from what I've heard.


----------



## SilverEars

What do people say the resonance causes to the sound?


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Closed sounding, main difference between open backs and closed from my knowledge


----------



## SilverEars

Ok, there is a distinction between electrical resonance and sonic resonance.  Electrical resonance is clearly showed on the impedance graphs, but in regards to sonic resonance I would think it's the echoing effect on closed area from lack of decay of the sonic waves.  I've heard about this on hearing aids with small bore size where the user would fix the echo by enlarging the bore.  Also, for closed backs this would make sense since it's enclosed.
  
 I still wonder what the electrical resonance graph would portray sonically.  I would think it would be the drivers moving ignoring the electrical control like a spring example.
  
 Also, another thing that should be considered regarding Tyll's graph is what kind of source he was using for these measurements.


----------



## briskly

His measurement gear is described here.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurment-proceedures-introduction-and-equipment

As for what the electrical measurements show that is audible, I don't see what they show besides phase.


----------



## SilverEars

I was at RWA's website checking out the Isabella Amp.  http://redwineaudio.com/components/isabella-re
  
 And something perplexing I've run into.  This amp is run on a battery to elimate AC to DC conversion stage.  He writes this about how low internal resitance of the battery is better for SQ and doesn't explain why.  Here's what RWA says
  
State-of-the-art technology. Delivers improved sound & added convenience compared to alternative battery types. LiFePO4 (LFP) battery packs have much lower internal resistance (compared to SLA), which translates directly into better sound. And only Red Wine Audio offers premium LFP battery packs for an entire line of hi-fi components, resulting in:


Great dynamics
Tight, resolved bass
An open and extended treble response
The most environmentally friendly battery technology available
5 times the cycle life compared to sealed lead-acid (SLA) batteries
No loss in cycle life when batteries run to complete discharge
Built-in, custom-designed cell management, optimizing battery performance and reliability
Ease of replacement, with no special skills or soldering required

 And, I've read comments on the forums of people saying all batteries are not created equal for portable music players, and the more expensive stuff has better power stage after the batter?  Really?? Can it really be that better?


----------



## bigshot

no


----------



## Joe Bloggs

It seems my business partner will be the last person to ever be convinced of what I can do with digital filters, insisting that getting it done using hardware is different. As far as I know, for perfect audio you just need to take care of frequency response, phase response and distortion--and good distortion figures can be had from cheap gear while frequency response and phase response can be taken care of by digital filters. But whenever I debate the topic with him he brings up a jungle of audiophile jargon, none of which I believe is relevant to the point, but I can't seem to prove that to him without acquiring a double PhD in acoustics and public speaking :rolleyes: Help?


----------



## esldude

joe bloggs said:


> It seems my business partner will be the last person to ever be convinced of what I can do with digital filters, insisting that getting it done using hardware is different. As far as I know, for perfect audio you just need to take care of frequency response, phase response and distortion--and good distortion figures can be had from cheap gear while frequency response and phase response can be taken care of by digital filters. But whenever I debate the topic with him he brings up a jungle of audiophile jargon, none of which I believe is relevant to the point, but I can't seem to prove that to him without acquiring a double PhD in acoustics and public speaking
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Well, there is always the blind test of some sort.  Can he tell a difference or is it all just bias in his mind?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

How do you blind test IEMs?

Well, there's a slew of CIEM demos coming our way, all with the same shape. Hmm  

What I'd love to have is some sort of reductive reasoning with scientific backing proving that frequency response, phase response and distortion are all we need to look at.


----------



## Don Hills

silverears said:


> I was at RWA's website checking out the Isabella Amp.  http://redwineaudio.com/components/isabella-re
> 
> And something perplexing I've run into.  This amp is run on a battery to elimate AC to DC conversion stage.  He writes this about how low internal resitance of the battery is better for SQ and doesn't explain why.
> ...


 
 He conveniently fails to mention the fact that the amp still contains AC to DC circuitry. The battery voltage has to be converted to the correct voltage for the tube filaments (6.3v) and the HT for the tubes (150v or more). This is done with a SMPS (switched mode power supply), same principle as the power supply in a PC, which converts DC to AC, steps it up in a transformer, then converts it back to DC. Worse, it does this at high frequencies (above 20 KHz) which requires careful design to prevent high frequency switching noise affecting the audio - typically causing low level buzzing or whistling sounds.


----------



## cjl

silverears said:


> I was at RWA's website checking out the Isabella Amp.  http://redwineaudio.com/components/isabella-re
> 
> And something perplexing I've run into.  This amp is run on a battery to elimate AC to DC conversion stage.  He writes this about how low internal resitance of the battery is better for SQ and doesn't explain why.


 
  
 Low internal resistance of a battery is a good thing because it allows the battery to act more like an ideal DC source, with no voltage variations that are dependent on the load being driven. However, as long as the device has proper voltage regulation after the batteries, and the battery capability is selected intelligently based on the expected and required load (depending on what exactly it is powering), there really shouldn't be any difference at all. For a preamp, this is especially amusing, since a preamp won't have a significantly variable load or current requirement (since it's going to be hooked up to a high-impedance input to an amplifier). The demands on something like a cell phone battery or a portable headphone amp battery will be much greater due to the fact that a headphone output will have to supply significant amounts of current, unlike a preamp output.
  
 Also, there's no reason at all why driving something off AC can't be just as clean and noise free as driving something off a battery, though there are a few additional considerations (especially if you have a grounded AC plug, which introduces the possibility of ground loops). It is actually true that running a component off battery can remove a lot of these concerns, but any well-designed audio component shouldn't suffer from noise introduced by the AC supply anyways.


----------



## bigshot

joe bloggs said:


> I debate the topic with him he brings up a jungle of audiophile jargon, none of which I believe is relevant to the point




That is called "obfuscation" and it is a deliberate argumentative technique used by high end stereo salesmen. Obfuscation is intended to make the customer or person asking the questions become confused, so they will shut up and just buy what they're told to buy.

If you really want to know the truth for yourself, just figure it all out for yourself. You probably won't convince your boss, because he'll just kick up more dust no matter what you say.

Test tone sweeps to determine audible frequency response would be useful to determine differences between IEMs.


----------



## esldude

joe bloggs said:


> How do you blind test IEMs?
> 
> Well, there's a slew of CIEM demos coming our way, all with the same shape. Hmm
> 
> ...


 

 Okay, blind testing IEMs would be a problem. 
  
 How about running two IEMs in parallel?  One goes in one ear, and one goes in the other.  If you can make them sound the same as whichever of the IEMs is the target, maybe that would begin to get through.  One ear has the preferred IEM, and one ear with a lesser phone is made to sound identical enough the stereo presentation suffers not at all.  If he is determined to never admit otherwise the truth is nothing will convince him.  If he is open to being convinced maybe this would start to get the seed planted as something he actually experiences.


----------



## SilverEars

cjl said:


> Low internal resistance of a battery is a good thing because it allows the battery to act more like an ideal DC source, with no voltage variations that are dependent on the load being driven. However, as long as the device has proper voltage regulation after the batteries, and the battery capability is selected intelligently based on the expected and required load (depending on what exactly it is powering), there really shouldn't be any difference at all. For a preamp, this is especially amusing, since a preamp won't have a significantly variable load or current requirement (since it's going to be hooked up to a high-impedance input to an amplifier). The demands on something like a cell phone battery or a portable headphone amp battery will be much greater due to the fact that a headphone output will have to supply significant amounts of current, unlike a preamp output.
> 
> Also, there's no reason at all why driving something off AC can't be just as clean and noise free as driving something off a battery, though there are a few additional considerations (especially if you have a grounded AC plug, which introduces the possibility of ground loops). It is actually true that running a component off battery can remove a lot of these concerns, but any well-designed audio component shouldn't suffer from noise introduced by the AC supply anyways.


 
 I see what you mean, if the regulator comes after the battery, and if it has a very low input impedance, the drop of voltage in the internal resistance will be more significant.  The impedance of the battery should be very small, but of course the drop across the load will depend on ratio so the load should have significantly higher impedance.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

esldude said:


> Okay, blind testing IEMs would be a problem.
> 
> How about running two IEMs in parallel?  One goes in one ear, and one goes in the other.  If you can make them sound the same as whichever of the IEMs is the target, maybe that would begin to get through.  One ear has the preferred IEM, and one ear with a lesser phone is made to sound identical enough the stereo presentation suffers not at all.  If he is determined to never admit otherwise the truth is nothing will convince him.  If he is open to being convinced maybe this would start to get the seed planted as something he actually experiences.




That's actually a pretty tall order... Even if I had two identical DAC/amps (thus eliminating variation in interface latency), the time shift introduced by even a minimum phase EQ on the lesser phone would make hash of the stereo image, and I'm not savvy enough to measure and correct for this time shift.


----------



## higbvuyb

joe bloggs said:


> That's actually a pretty tall order... Even if I had two identical DAC/amps (thus eliminating variation in interface latency), the time shift introduced by even a minimum phase EQ on the lesser phone would make hash of the stereo image, and I'm not savvy enough to measure and correct for this time shift.


 
 Set a delay in the music player software.
  
 Depends on how the software handles it, maybe a flat EQ has the same signal delay?


----------



## miceblue

Interesting.
http://stereos.about.com/b/2014/03/11/blind-testing-from-both-sides.htm
http://stereos.about.com/b/2014/02/26/why-audiophiles-might-be-wrong-about-the-loudness-war.htm
http://stereos.about.com/b/2014/03/02/is-the-loudness-war-over.htm


----------



## bigshot

joe bloggs said:


> That's actually a pretty tall order... Even if I had two identical DAC/amps (thus eliminating variation in interface latency), the time shift introduced by even a minimum phase EQ on the lesser phone would make hash of the stereo image, and I'm not savvy enough to measure and correct for this time shift.


 
  
 The time shift wouldn't be audible anyway.


----------



## bigshot

miceblue said:


> Interesting.
> http://stereos.about.com/b/2014/02/26/why-audiophiles-might-be-wrong-about-the-loudness-war.htm


 
  
 Dynamic compression and hot mastering are two completely different things. One moves all of the sound into a narrower range, the other chops the whole top off in clipping.


----------



## superjawes

http://stereos.about.com/b/2014/02/26/why-audiophiles-might-be-wrong-about-the-loudness-war.htm


			
				Brent Butterworth said:
			
		

> The results will surprise and probably infuriate audiophiles who've decided dynamic range compression is the greatest evil since -- well, whatever they were upset about last year.


The snark is strong with this one...


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting.
> ...


 

 that!
 I actually happen to like having a few albums with low dynamic range because it's nice for quiet listenings. but it has nothing to do with all the bass choping "let your brain recreate the missing part so it will feel like it goes to 11" and other clipping nonsense.
 voices are usually compressed, it has nothing to do with loudness war. dynamic tweaking doesn't always mean loudness war.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Anyone interested in comparing the Ultimate Ears UE700 and later maybe the UERM against mysterious cheapo IEMs I will modify with digital signal processing?
http://www.head-fi.org/t/672716/the-999-vs-99-challenge-tour/480#post_10499325


----------



## SilverEars

joe bloggs said:


> Anyone interested in comparing the Ultimate Ears UE700 and later maybe the UERM against mysterious cheapo IEMs I will modify with digital signal processing?
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/672716/the-999-vs-99-challenge-tour/480#post_10499325


 
 In interested.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

silverears said:


> In interested.




You would need to post in that $999 vs 99 thread itself to apply


----------



## anthk

bigshot said:


> Dynamic compression and hot mastering are two completely different things. One moves all of the sound into a narrower range, the other chops the whole top off in clipping.


 
 It seems that the results shows that people can notice 8db of DR difference instead of 2....?


----------



## SilverEars

What do you think about this usb signal cleaner?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Discussion related to oscillator timing and jitter.
  
 http://www.ifi-audio.com/en/iPurifier.html
  
 Here is the discussion on it
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/683778/350cad-herus-asynchronous-usb-audio-2-0-24bit-352-8ks-s-dxd-and-dsd64-128-2-4vrms-headphone-dac/135


----------



## cjl

Looks like a great way for that company to scam people out of their money.


----------



## castleofargh

silverears said:


> What do you think about this usb signal cleaner?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 why buy one when you can remove EMI completely with only 8 Ipurererers! 8*5=40 no EMI!!!! eureka!!!




 but I'm at a loss when it comes to the process, does it trap the EMI on the rest of the USB cable with invisible hands? or does it scare them away with it's revolutionary aluminum? I imagine the EMI trying to get through the first 6.2cm of the Ipurifiererer, slowly losing hope and then giving up on the usb cable plugged after it. psychological attrition.
  
 it does "nothing", so well that you can use it with any sample rate! another great feature obviously.
  
 so what is it? a 80ohm resistor in aluminum casing?


----------



## bigshot

39dB of EMI turned into 34dB IMMEDIATELY!


----------



## esldude

castleofargh said:


> why buy one when you can remove EMI completely with only 8 Ipurererers! 8*5=40 no EMI!!!! eureka!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Well if they measured field strength of the EMI I wondered if plugging the device in and measuring at the end of the device wouldn't drop the field strength just from being further away.  I don't know how they measured, but this might be it.  They mention EMI at the end of the USB.  So there may be nothing in there other than distance.


----------



## anthk

Must be deus ex machina, removing random jitter and all that.
 A genuine question:
 I get very audible noise when I was still using a sensitive 32ohm headphone plugged straight into my computer's onboard soundcard when NO music is playing.
 Was I listening to the noise inherent in the audio chip or was all the "EMI" from other computer components being captured by the audio chip like an antenna?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

anthk said:


> Must be deus ex machina, removing random jitter and all that.
> 
> A genuine question:
> I get very audible noise when I was still using a sensitive 32ohm headphone plugged straight into my computer's onboard soundcard when NO music is playing.
> ...




Could be either, either way, your sound card does not have adequate noise rejection, or its amp section produces too much noise, or some combination of both. If it's a steady white noise it's more likely to be the amp itself, if the noise is "patterned" it's interference.


----------



## ab initio

anthk said:


> Must be deus ex machina, removing random jitter and all that.
> A genuine question:
> I get very audible noise when I was still using a sensitive 32ohm headphone plugged straight into my computer's onboard soundcard when NO music is playing.
> Was I listening to the noise inherent in the audio chip or was all the "EMI" from other computer components being captured by the audio chip like an antenna?


 

 My laptop did this. It drove me nuts when I used my HD 280. With their sound isolation and sensitivity, the laptops headphone amp noise bugged the snot out of me. When I mute the volume, the headphone amp is turned completely off and the noise goes away----that was the amp noise. WHen I loaded programs, copied files, used internet, etc..., I was rewarded with extra hissing----that was interference.
  
 My solution was to buy a standalone dac and an amp. If you're using a desktop, you might replace the sound card, or you may need a better, cleaner power supply (or you might have another component that's creating a lot of noise, like a graphics card or a failing fan)
  
 Cheers


----------



## SilverEars

Delete..


----------



## SilverEars

Ok something hilarious going on in one of the forum sections regarding coaxial vs optical.  I wanted to interject, but didn't want to break their flow of cool discoveries.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 So basically what it is a portable music player supposedly has a coaxial output and optical, and there was a debate on one sounds better than the other to an external DAC. To me those two signals shouldn't make a difference so I thought it was silly, but hey maybe there is something different about the demodulation process for two types of signals?  Any, they say it's audible.  So..


----------



## bigshot

You have a knack for ferreting out the snake oil threads!


----------



## SilverEars

bigshot said:


> You have a knack for ferreting out the snake oil threads!


 
 I'm all over the place on this forum, so I run into lots of interesting ideas and products.


----------



## cjl

silverears said:


> Ok something hilarious going on in one of the forum sections regarding coaxial vs optical.  I wanted to interject, but didn't want to break their flow of cool discoveries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Optical is a better choice if you're worried about ground loops or interference/electrical noise on the ground line, since it doesn't involve any electrical connection between the digital source and the DAC/amplifier at all. Other than that, there should be no difference at all. I do run optical from my computer to my receiver because of a noisy ground issue I used to have (when using coax), and it did fix it entirely.
  
 EDIT: Just noticed that the source device is a portable music player. In that case, there's almost definitely no benefit, since a portable player is likely running off of battery (in which case, there is no possibility of a ground loop since the player isn't grounded).


----------



## bigshot

I use a psychic link to avoid all interference.


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> I use a psychic link to avoid all interference.


 
 I did consider that option, but they're so finicky and expensive...


----------



## Muinarc

bigshot said:


> I use a psychic link to avoid all interference.



 


Do you have any links for where to purchase audiophile grade psychic link amplifiers? As you can see in my signature I have been working on such a setup for a while.


----------



## GrindingThud

muinarc said:


> Do you have any links for where to purchase audiophile grade psychic link amplifiers? As you can see in my signature I have been working on such a setup for a while.


----------



## RazorJack

cjl said:


> I do run optical from my computer to my receiver because of a noisy ground issue I used to have (when using coax), and it did fix it entirely.


 
  
 Out of curiousity, what did you notice about the sound that made it noisy?


----------



## cjl

A very obvious (somewhat quiet, but easily audible) humming/hissing sound that went away the instant I unplugged the coax cable.
  
 (If you have an electrical noise issue, it won't cause a "slight reduction in the air between the violins", or a "faint granularity" or a "loss of detail in the upper treble". It'll be noisy, possibly with a sound like static or tape hiss, possibly with a hum, but definitely a real, audible noise)


----------



## RazorJack

Oh yes I'm all too familiar with noise/background hum issues, it's incredible how crappy some headphone outputs from big bucks manufacturers can sound. But that's all in the analog stage. Don't hear many cases where the digital transport gets messed up so bad. Glad you found an easy fix!


----------



## cjl

razorjack said:


> Oh yes I'm all too familiar with noise/background hum issues, it's incredible how crappy some headphone outputs from big bucks manufacturers can sound. But that's all in the analog stage. Don't hear many cases where the digital transport gets messed up so bad. Glad you found an easy fix!


 
 I don't think it was related to the fact that the cable was the digital transport at all - I think it was ground noise transmitted over the cable shield (high-end homebuilt desktop computers aren't known for the cleanest grounds in the world). The digital cable just happened to be the only connection between my computer and my receiver that included a ground. Since the digital and analog (on the amp/dac side) is all within a single box (I use an integrated A/V receiver), the ground noise that was transmitted across the cable shield got into the analog stage of the amp, and caused the hum. It probably also could have been fixed by going to a cable with the sheath only grounded on one side (at least that's my guess), but I had an optical cable laying around, and it was an easy fix.


----------



## anthk

cjl said:


> A very obvious (somewhat quiet, but easily audible) humming/hissing sound that went away the instant I unplugged the coax cable.
> 
> (If you have an electrical noise issue, it won't cause a "slight reduction in the air between the violins", or a "faint granularity" or a "loss of detail in the upper treble". It'll be noisy, possibly with a sound like static or tape hiss, possibly with a hum, but definitely a real, audible noise)


 

 Yeah I had the hissing and the high pitched EM noise from other components when I was using onboard soundcard. Usb dac solved it completely.


----------



## miceblue

How does one know if a cable is bad? I have two removable headphone cables: one is a standard cable from a headphone manufacturer, another is made by non-headphone company and is made of a fancy copper material.

From A/B listening tests, I find the fancy copper cable to subjectively sound much clearer and better and I'm pretty confident I could identify which cable is which upon a blind test. Cable testing is hard to do though since cables have different impedance values and I gave the standard cable an advantage by making the volume louder. The fancy copper cable still sounds better to me.

Objectivists always say "cables are cables unless one is severely flawed," but no one ever says how to tell which one is the flawed one, so I'm wondering what's going on with my observations. The standard cable is from a manufacturer of high regards around here on Head-Fi and they're a very common replacement cable.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

I would go by the stock cable being the proper/good cable. Since the product is designed with the stock cable in mind, the stock cable would essentially be the right "sounding" one. If a different cable causes a headphone to sound different, then you have found the  source that is changing the sound you are hearing. Still something that sounds "better" is subjective and it is also a broad term. I suppose the objective way of checking how it affects the sound is running a frequency sweep.
  
 I find it problematic, when I am searching for a replacement cable myself, if people give impressions on sound differences more so than actual build quality. Even worse if the manufacturer claims sound differences. I just need a no non-sense custom cable maker that focuses on build quality instead of claims in order to sell their cables.


----------



## davidsh

Got a question 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 What measurement goal would you say should be fulfilled for you to call an amp transparent? For the sake of the argument, let's suppose we are talking about a headphone like hd800 that measures very well etc.


----------



## bigshot

davidsh said:


> What measurement goal would you say should be fulfilled for you to call an amp transparent?


 
  
 When the measurements all exceed the thresholds of human perception.


----------



## davidsh

bigshot said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > What measurement goal would you say should be fulfilled for you to call an amp transparent?
> ...


 
 Yeah, the question is what the threshold is.. I see numbers llike 0.1% distortion being thrown around, but I suppose it's pretty hard to measure IMD in music. And noise floor is a thing to itself. And again, the noise could accumulate throughout the chain.


----------



## bigshot

The Most Important Spec Sheet: The Human Ear
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/645851/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear


----------



## miceblue

kamijoismyhero said:


> I would go by the stock cable being the proper/good cable. Since the product is designed with the stock cable in mind, the stock cable would essentially be the right "sounding" one. If a different cable causes a headphone to sound different, then you have found the  source that is changing the sound you are hearing. Still something that sounds "better" is subjective and it is also a broad term. I suppose the objective way of checking how it affects the sound is running a frequency sweep.
> 
> I find it problematic, when I am searching for a replacement cable myself, if people give impressions on sound differences more so than actual build quality. Even worse if the manufacturer claims sound differences. I just need a no non-sense custom cable maker that focuses on build quality instead of claims in order to sell their cables.



So with that reasoning, should one assume the stock cable always is the proper cable?


----------



## davidsh

bigshot said:


> The Most Important Spec Sheet: The Human Ear
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/645851/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear


 
 Thank you, that's at least something. With such figures, I suppose one can assume any well constructed amp with enough power should be able to be audibly transparent in an ABX test, which is what you said all along, though there are still some variables like IMD that likely mean nothing in practice anyway.


----------



## bigshot

Audiophiles who keep the specs of their equipment beyond the perceptual thresholds but not ridiculously so get the exact same sound quality as those who go to absurd extremes to split the atom. Why spend a lot of money on sound you can't hear?


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

miceblue said:


> So with that reasoning, should one assume the stock cable always is the proper cable?


 
 That's is how I would go about it. The opening sentence of my post even says so. The next couple sentences is basically me saying what is the flaw in the quote "cables are cables unless one is severely flawed." Then with the "cables are cables" part, it explains how you can recreate said proper cable without much worry. Put the two together and that explains the logic, at least how I go about buying cables.


----------



## esldude

You know about IMD, usually amps have equal or better THD numbers to IMD.  IMD products are more audible at any given level as they aren't harmonically related to the fundamental, and they are a tougher thing for amps to deal with.  Most often if your IMD is good you don't have to worry about other issues of distortion.  Also IMD tests of two tones stress the device under test more than most other test tones.  Despite many imagining otherwise, multi-tone IMD is not harder on an amp to reproduce than twin-tone IMD.  Music having many multiple tones is easier still.  Bottom line if you can get IMD results down to very low levels of .1% or less you don't have much non-linearity to worry about.


----------



## stv014

esldude said:


> You know about IMD, usually amps have equal or better THD numbers to IMD.


 
  
 IMD is usually measured with low (like 60 Hz) or very high (for example, 19 and 20 kHz) frequencies that are more challenging to the amplifier than the 1 kHz tone that is typically used for measuring THD; that is why it often looks worse in amplifier specifications. However, a similar increase at low and/or high frequencies will likely also be shown by a full 20 Hz to 20 kHz THD sweep with enough bandwidth for measuring the distortion at 20 kHz.


----------



## anthk

A quick question
 In another post, the JND for jitter is said to be 20ns.
 ODAC designer He-who--must-not-be-named measured jitter with a FFT method and gave dB as the unit. Do I still use the"  < - 80dB - is - not - audible"  rule with that or is it a totally different thing we are talking about?


----------



## stv014

anthk said:


> Do I still use the"  < - 80dB - is - not - audible"  rule with that or is it a totally different thing we are talking about?


 
  
 It is a reasonable "rule of thumb" for jitter as well. Actually, with sinusoid jitter at 11025 Hz, the sidebands have a total power (RMS) of -80 dBr at 4 ns peak to peak jitter level, so it is even a more pessimistic threshold than ">20 ns is audible", but by less than an order of magnitude.


----------



## castleofargh

don't know if I'm allowed to post a link as there are a lot of copyright interweb fun, but there is a 5mn stuff from samantha bee on the daily show from June 2 2014 (with de niro), about vaccination. if it's available in your country (or if you're a google hacker), I recommend it. don't mind the pseudo politic attacks, just the arguments felt appallingly familiar to me. and if people are ok with ignoring facts when they concern their own lives or their children's, how are we not fighting a lost battle here in sound science?
  
 my personnal favorite part : "it's a concensus of ... of who?"


----------



## esldude

castleofargh said:


> don't know if I'm allowed to post a link as there are a lot of copyright interweb fun, but there is a 5mn stuff from samantha bee on the daily show from June 2 2014 (with de niro), about vaccination. if it's available in your country (or if you're a google hacker), I recommend it. don't mind the pseudo politic attacks, just the arguments felt appallingly familiar to me. and if people are ok with ignoring facts when they concern their own lives or their children's, how are we not fighting a lost battle here in sound science?
> 
> my personnal favorite part : "it's a concensus of ... of who?"


 

 Yes, I saw that, and it quite funny.  At least until you realize what you are watching at which point it can get unsettling to say the least. 
  
 Agreed, if you can't use science to save children's lives (at least with some people) what chance do we have with the audiophile cable myth.   Of course it can get worse.  I heard a Mom once, after being told she was allowing something dumb by her two boys, something which endangered their lives, "nobody says we have to do the smart thing.  We can be dumb if we want to?"


----------



## anthk

esldude said:


> Yes, I saw that, and it quite funny.  At least until you realize what you are watching at which point it can get unsettling to say the least.
> 
> Agreed, if you can't use science to save children's lives (at least with some people) what chance do we have with the audiophile cable myth.   Of course it can get worse.  I heard a Mom once, after being told she was allowing something dumb by her two boys, something which endangered their lives, "nobody says we have to do the smart thing.  We can be dumb if we want to?"


 

 Natural selection will work that out for us. It's fine.


----------



## miceblue

Serious question: does burn-in produce an audible effect in some solid state amps?

I took an electrical engineering course this quarter regarding sensors and thermistors was one of the topics. I'm not an EE student, but sensors have always been kind of an interest for me and it was interesting to learn a bit more about resistors. I've seen it mentioned elsewhere but my professor said resistors are usually the noisiest components in a circuit and their performance is temperature-dependent. I'm guessing most resistors operate linearly in a specific temperature range, but their resistance changes nonetheless. Do you think some solid state amps perform differently after the device has been running for some time and the temperature of the amp remains at a stable value? I'm wondering if this is the case for Class A amplifiers since they're so inefficient and they tend to warm up quite a bit.


----------



## castleofargh

are you asking if an amp sounds different after "warming up" 20mn or do you talk about a change in the long run.


----------



## SilverEars

I think this is more of a material science, physics question.  Ones that specializes in material changes should be more cable to answer than a one that focus on EE.  Also EE has many facets, some may be more knowledgable in power, and others in circuits, some in fabrication, some in signals, and etc..  Like any other disciplines.


----------



## miceblue

castleofargh said:


> are you asking if an amp sounds different after "warming up" 20mn or do you talk about a change in the long run.



I was thinking more for the short term period (20 minutes) yeah.




silverears said:


> I think this is more of a material science, physics question.  Ones that specializes in material changes should be more cable to answer than a one that focus on EE.  Also EE has many facets, some may be more knowledgable in power, and others in circuits, some in fabrication, some in signals, and etc..  Like any other disciplines.



I think EEs are more likely to design and build a circuit than material scientists, so I thought perhaps an EE would be able to provide more information about an amplifier's performance because of this phenomenon. But yes, of course there are different areas of EE focusing on different topics.


----------



## blades

Solid state amps sound the same right after startup as they do after playing all day.  Hope that helps.


----------



## Digitalchkn

blades said:


> Solid state amps sound the same right after startup as they do after playing all day.  Hope that helps.


 
  
 This is a rather bold statement on your part. Solid state electronics are well known to have temperature-dependent variations, consequence of which lead to some amount of variation in analog characteristics. A circuit must be designed with temp compensation in mind to ensure constant analog characteristics over operating temperature range. The amount of variation you may experience highly depends on the circuit itself. As there are nearly countless circuit topologies used  it is incorrect to say that all SS amps are going to be temperature agnostics.


----------



## SilverEars

Reason why I say material science major is because IC fabrication involves material scientist's expertise is because they know physical properties so well.  An EE will not focus on that aspect and has other aspects they are on the look out for.  Solid State electronics theory is based on lots of physics formulas with temperature variables in mind.  Lots of material science stuff in there.


----------



## SilverEars

Power chord discussion here, if some of you want to join in or spectate.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/702787/chord-hugo/4230#post_10618407


----------



## bigshot

I'm afraid we aren't allowed in that group.


----------



## miceblue

silverears said:


> Power chord discussion here, if some of you want to join in or spectate.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/702787/chord-hugo/4230#post_10618407



What is that? It looks like a Wheatstone bridge setup, but there are inductors and capacitors in there instead of resistors.


----------



## RazorJack

miceblue said:


> Do you think some solid state amps perform differently after the device has been running for some time and the temperature of the amp remains at a stable value? I'm wondering if this is the case for Class A amplifiers since they're so inefficient and they tend to warm up quite a bit.


 
  
 Different, as in:
  
 - audible, no.
  
 - measureable, probably. Particularly the characteristics of diodes and transistors, I suppose.


----------



## castleofargh

as a totally subjective finding, I remember when I had a pico slim, I felt like the sound was better 10 or 15mn after turning it ON. take that for what it was, a feeling. I could never put a finger on what was the audio difference so it might very well have been pure placebo.
 but I didn't feel that from other protable amps and never though it was something possible in the first place, so "maybe".
anyway I'm not the kind of guy to think "hey!!! I will probably like to listen to some music in 20mn, let me just turn the amp ON in advance" ^_^. when I want music I turn it ON and it does what it does, if it goes better 15mn later good, if not, good.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Got a question for you guys.

Say I have an impulse response in a wave file. What's the easiest, programmatically most idiot-proof way to generate a minimum phase inverse filter (ie correcting frequency magnitude response but not phase response) for said impulse response?


----------



## ab initio

joe bloggs said:


> Got a question for you guys.
> 
> Say I have an impulse response in a wave file. What's the easiest, programmatically most idiot-proof way to generate a minimum phase inverse filter (ie correcting frequency magnitude response but not phase response) for said impulse response?




Calculate the inverse filter in matlab or octave in Fourier space and export a convolution filter? 
I've never tried this, but that would be my approach.

 Cheers


----------



## Digitalchkn

joe bloggs said:


> Got a question for you guys.
> 
> Say I have an impulse response in a wave file. What's the easiest, programmatically most idiot-proof way to generate a minimum phase inverse filter (ie correcting frequency magnitude response but not phase response) for said impulse response?


 
  
 Just want to point out that linear phase filter (which sounds like what you are looking for) is not exactly same as min phase filter. Min phase filters are causal, lin phase are not stricly speaking causal which I suppose makes some people non-believers.


----------



## bigshot

For those who do their own recordings, Neumann is running a contest to give away their new microphone, the TLM107. Pretty sweet mike!
  
 http://splur.gy/r/rMQ9N/r/2N4fqyxxbc0


----------



## Steve Eddy

Sweet indeed. I'll let you know if I win. 

se


----------



## bigshot

I always like it when I see reviews of equipment I have actually used. Today on the front page of HeadFi is a review like that. The reviewer it totally clueless. How many slips in logic can a person have in a publicly published piece of writing?


----------



## miceblue

bigshot said:


> I always like it when I see reviews of equipment I have actually used. Today on the front page of HeadFi is a review like that. The reviewer it totally clueless. How many slips in logic can a person have in a publicly published piece of writing?



Maybe you should write a review for once and show them how it's done.


----------



## bigshot

The problem is, my review would be "You probably don't need this at all."


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

You can also try constructive criticism and maybe point out where his logic is slipping. 

There are plenty of reviews out there that says you don't need a certain product while providing a reasonable argument.


----------



## bigshot

I think there is a purpose for reviews on the web. But that purpose doesn't necessarily include accurate descriptions of the product being reviewed or fitness for a particular use. In this case, it was to give vague conflicting impressions of multiple different sounds and to infer a relative place in the spectrum of status symbols. Perhaps that is all a review really needs to do.
  
 When a particular piece of equipment exceeds your ability to hear by a power of ten, how do you compare that to something that only exceeds your ability to hear by a factor of five? Is the latter half as good? Or are they exactly the same? How do you review something when just about everything falls well below human hearing thresholds?


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> How do you review something when just about everything falls well below human hearing thresholds?


 
 With an O-scope, a data acquisition system, spectrum analysis, a little bit of math,  and a whole lot of "it's good enough for human ears".
  
 Cheers


----------



## swspiers

ab initio said:


> With an O-scope, a data acquisition system, spectrum analysis, a little bit of math,  and a whole lot of "it's good enough for human ears".
> 
> Cheers


 

 I'm curious- can you name to specific parts of the human brain believed to be involved with sound/speech/music/rhythm processing?
  
 I ask this in all sincerity, since the 'good enough for human ears' statement is so simplistic as to be meaningless, and yet I come across it quite often in the Sound Science threads.


----------



## ab initio

swspiers said:


> I'm curious- can you name to specific parts of the human brain believed to be involved with sound/speech/music/rhythm processing?
> 
> I ask this in all sincerity, since the 'good enough for human ears' statement is so simplistic as to be meaningless, and yet I come across it quite often in the Sound Science threads.


 
auditory cortex
  
 You could read a book on it.
  
 Cheers


----------



## swspiers

ab initio said:


> auditory cortex
> 
> You could read a book on it.
> 
> Cheers




And another freshman answer. Correct but incomplete. Want to try again?


----------



## bigshot

swspiers said:


> I'm curious- can you name to specific parts of the human brain believed to be involved with sound/speech/music/rhythm processing?


 
  
 Whoa there! You're putting the cart before the horse... It doesn't get to the brain until it's gotten through the ears. If people can't determine a difference between amps or CD players in level matched blind listening tests, then it can safely be said that the amps and CD players are audibly transparent, meaning that if there are differences, "it's good enough for human ears".
  
 Sometimes simple has more meaning than attempts to complicate things.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

bigshot said:


> I think there is a purpose for reviews on the web. But that purpose doesn't necessarily include accurate descriptions of the product being reviewed or fitness for a particular use. In this case, it was to give vague conflicting impressions of multiple different sounds and to infer a relative place in the spectrum of status symbols. Perhaps that is all a review really needs to do.
> 
> When a particular piece of equipment exceeds your ability to hear by a power of ten, how do you compare that to something that only exceeds your ability to hear by a factor of five? Is the latter half as good? Or are they exactly the same? How do you review something when just about everything falls well below human hearing thresholds?


 
 Reading the review and then reading your complaints for reviewing a product, I barely see an issue. Maybe you are reading too hard into it. It seemed like a fair review, he didn't like the sound of the unit with some of his headphones but maintains it is a neutral device. To be honest, he seems to be just describing the sound differences of his headphones more than the unit itself.


----------



## swspiers

Bigshot, I respect the heck out of you, but I strongly disagree with you. Yes, the ears are vital. But the processing of that information is far more complicated, and not anywhere near to being completely understood. There are countless theories of perception, but very few laws.

I find that very few objective arguments take that into account.


----------



## bigshot

kamijoismyhero said:


> To be honest, he seems to be just describing the sound differences of his headphones more than the unit itself.


 
  
 That's precisely the problem. He says the amp sounds harsh with his headphones. The amp doesn't sound harsh. The headphones do. Then he says the amp sounds warm and neutral with the Oppo headphones. Which is it? Harsh or warm or neutral? He's just described the amp as sounding every different way it possibly can sound. Plus he says that it would be a good stepping stone to a better headphone amp, but he doesn't define what could be improved in this one. I can't imagine that anyone would have trouble with the menus. There are only four of them.


----------



## bigshot

swspiers said:


> Yes, the ears are vital. But the processing of that information is far more complicated, and not anywhere near to being completely understood.


 
  
 That may be true, but it's completely irrelevant if the difference between components is beyond our ears' ability to hear. No amount of brain processing is going to make a lick of difference if the difference is inaudible in the first place.


----------



## castleofargh

swspiers said:


> ab initio said:
> 
> 
> > auditory cortex
> ...


 
  I don't think disdain is the right tone to employ when asking a question.
  
 it's a vast domain and you can't make one answer that could cover it all. I don't really see how having a described part of the brain would enlighten anyone about our limit of perception.
 and about the "good enough for human ears" part, it depends on a lot of parameters, most of which you could google. sometimes a sound can be completely masked by another sound just 20 or 25db louder.
 under other circumstances we can notice one sound, and later, another sound 100db louder without a problem. but as soon as music is playing, we lose that ability as the brain prioritize the data.
 all in all I think it is widely accepted that while listening to music, anything manifesting at least 80db under the loudest played sound is considered unnoticed.
 so that means noises and distortion at -80db (or 0.01%) are considered inaudible while music is playing.
  
 as a joke, the industry counts headphones with under 1% of distortion as ok. (it show how bad headphones are compared to the rest of the audio system).
  
  
 about objective arguments, you give 2 samples of music with a difference at -40db and see if people can accurately discriminate the samples. you do the same with differences at -50db etc.
 it has been done. they tried to bait giant squids with glowing ping pong balls, so you can imagine that scientists and doctors were already long bored with what humans can and cannot do.
 it was also demonstrated that some kind of noises or distortions are more noticeable than others, same for some frequencies over others.
 all this is well documented, but that's medicine more than headfi.


----------



## swspiers

castleofargh said:


> I don't think disdain is the right tone to employ when asking a question.
> 
> it's a vast domain and you can't make one answer that could cover it all. I don't really see how having a described part of the brain would enlighten anyone about our limit of perception.
> and about the "good enough for human ears" part, it depends on a lot of parameters, most of which you could google. sometimes a sound can be completely masked by another sound just 20 or 25db louder.
> ...


 

 Disdain was totally appropriate considering the nature of the response.


----------



## bigshot

The parameters of human hearing have been studied for over a century and are well understood. Just detectable thresholds have been measured and established. It's safe to say if an amp does 20Hz to 20kHz stone flat with .1% distortion, as long as everything else is equal, it's going to sound EXACTLY the same as an amp that does 10Hz to 40kHz stone flat with .0001% distortion. Sure, one measures better than the other, but THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME TO HUMAN EARS.


----------



## ab initio

@*swspiers *If you do want to discuss the brain and audio perception, please, start a new thread and we can have a fruitful discussion there. I encourage you to do so because I'm sure most everybody here would welcome the opportunity to learn something new.
  
 Cheers


----------



## jcx

does anyone have an example of any hearing related phenomena 1st being deduced from Physiology?
  
 Psychoacoustics is the more useful field for audio equipment design engineers looking for human hearing description - as far as I know the tracing the Anatomy, Neurophysiology of Psychoacoustic phenomena mainly flows in practice from the Psychoacoustic clues/observations to the Physiology detective work
  
 so the book I look at is Fastl Psychoacoustics http://www.amazon.com/Psychoacoustics-Springer-Series-Information-Sciences-ebook/dp/B00DZ0NP72/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1
  
 Tonotopic mapping from the basilar membrane up to auditory cortex seems very well documented - and its Psychoacoustic manifestations, such as ERB, frequency masking is demonstratively useful as seen in lossy CODEC design
  
 but as an evolved system there are other behaviors, no one easily examined/explained grand unified theory of human auditory sensing/processing exists or is expected
  
 for instance Tonotopic mapping isn't the only way we process the frequency of sounds, auditory neuron discharge phase locking likely plays an important role in pitch perception too
  
 somewhere where right and left auditory neurons get together we get a very high temporal resolution correlation - click stream difference times between the ears can be  resolved down to few microseconds - but most neurons firing rate saturates at mid kHz, few can manage 10 kHz - none have been observed in any mammal that can fire at 100s of kHz - none of acoustic signals have to have >20 kHz components
 does it matter if the general location where this correlation is happening is called the Olivary Complex?
  
  
 electronics, transducers, recording practice, audio reproduction all have limits, well described in Physics, EE/Signal and System Theory, these can be matched/compared with Psychoacoustics knowledge to give estimates of what parts of the chain have clearly audible errors, limitations, and the many on the electronics side nowadays that simply are way below so far known human Psychoacoustic thresholds


----------



## cjl

swspiers said:


> Bigshot, I respect the heck out of you, but I strongly disagree with you. Yes, the ears are vital. But the processing of that information is far more complicated, and not anywhere near to being completely understood. There are countless theories of perception, but very few laws.
> 
> I find that very few objective arguments take that into account.


 

 The human visual processing system is not fully understood, and the way we can interpret shapes, faces, and subtle visual details is extremely complicated. That doesn't mean that we need to include UV and IR in movies to ensure we get the complete experience though - even though we don't fully understand visual processing, we can say with quite a bit of confidence that all human visual perception is encompassed by the range of electromagnetic radiation from about 380nm to 750nm (give or take a bit on either end).
  
 Similarly, for audio, you're right that there's a lot of subconscious processing that goes on, but that doesn't mean that we can't set bounds on what is and is not perceptible.


----------



## bigshot

I would think that psychoacoustics would more likely make us *not* hear something audible, rather than perceive something that is inaudible. Frequency masking and filtering out constant sounds, like tape hiss are examples of not hearing something audible. I can't think of an example of perceiving something that is inaudible. I guess the fact that super-audible frequencies at loud volumes can cause headaches... but that isn't exactly a desirable thing.


----------



## davidsh

The Stax sr-207 manages to have distortion figures around 0.1-3% from 20-20kHz if my memory serves me correct. Rest could probably be EQ'ed, then pair with a 323 and a DAC and you'd have an amazing combo for little money wrt measurements.
Almost, if not transparent.


----------



## miceblue

davidsh said:


> The Stax sr-207 manages to have distortion figures around 0.1-3% from 20-20kHz if my memory serves me correct. Rest could probably be EQ'ed, then pair with a 323 and a DAC and you'd have an amazing combo for little money wrt measurements.
> Almost, if not transparent.


----------



## bigshot

If you figure for Fletcher Munson, that looks pretty much flat. My cans, the Oppo PM-1s are very similar. They're so close, I don't bother to EQ. For cans, if it's within 5dB from 40Hz to 10kHz, that is flat enough for government work.


----------



## SilverEars

bigshot said:


> If you figure for Fletcher Munson, that looks pretty much flat. My cans, the Oppo PM-1s are very similar. They're so close, I don't bother to EQ. For cans, if it's within 5dB from 40Hz to 10kHz, that is flat enough for government work.


 
 You like them 'O mighty one?  Currawong said they sound dark, but I guess it's preference though.  Graphzzz plzzz.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  
  
 Also, can somebody post a graph of how a audibly flat phones will look like taking an account of Fletcher Munson?


----------



## davidsh

Besides, the F-M curve is made based on what? Diffused field or? Anyway, that doesn't necessarily translate directly into what sound good for a headphone. Is it even relevant to use that curve wrt headphones?
  
 Linear speakers in a diffused field act rather different in a room I suppose, for example the treble generally rolls, which it doesn't with headphones with flat response.
  
 It'd probably make sense to find out which compensation curve that works best with headphones first (sean olive among others has looked into that?), EQ them flat to the ear and then apply said compensation curve. I have a feeling F-M alone as a compensation wouldn't make for a good sound.
  
 Can't really remember all the stuff and get my facts straight, sorry. Maybe you can?


----------



## ab initio

silverears said:


> ...how a audibly flat phones will look like taking an account of Fletcher Munson?


 
  

  




  
 Cheers


----------



## SilverEars

davidsh said:


> Besides, the F-M curve is made based on what? Diffused field or? Anyway, that doesn't necessarily translate directly into what sound good for a headphone. Is it even relevant to use that curve wrt headphones?
> 
> Linear speakers in a diffused field act rather different in a room I suppose, for example the treble generally rolls, which it doesn't with headphones with flat response.
> 
> ...


 
 Is there one collective info on different types of theories on how the compensation should be done?  I'me sure there are disagreements.  I would like to look into them, and possibly fine a favorite one.  I'm aware of the Olive, and diffuse field.  I believe the diffuse filed is used by Etymotic and Golden Ears.  Golden Ears apply more than one type of compensation from what I recall.  And then, there are Rin's graphs, his looks the wildest, more so than Tyll's.  Not sure who of these guys has the most accurate tools and philosophy.


----------



## SilverEars

ab initio said:


> Cheers


 
 NOoooooo.  Heaven's Gods no.  I will not.. Never.  It's seems so irrational to go with those.  But, it seems everybody on headfi are headed in that direction.  People will reach it and then they will finally forget about the equipment and realized it was the music after all.


----------



## Mambosenior

silverears said:


> ...it was the music after all.




Right! On Head-Fi! I buy that...NOT! (Oh please, can we abstain from this ridiculous and self-delusional phrase.) Let's break out those AM radios...for the music...after all.


----------



## bigshot

davidsh said:


> Besides, the F-M curve is made based on what? Diffused field or?


 
  
 Fletcher Munson is based on the sensitivity of the ear to frequencies. It applies to both headphones and speakers. (There is also something called "equal loudness contour" which is a broader definition of the concept.) The curve is a bit different at different frequencies and very different at different volume levels, as well as affecting lower frequencies differently between speakers and headphones, but the most important range for music listening at normal listening volumes is between 2kHz and 10kHz where the ear goes from very sensitive to not very sensitive.
  
 It can be ballparked by looking at the measured response above 2kHz. The dB should slope down to around 6kHz, then have a bump up at between 8 and 10kHz. Above 10kHz it doesn't really matter as much if the response is balanced, because that is the least important octave in the audible spectrum. The amount of the dip and bump depends on the volume you listen at, but I generally figure a deviation from flat around 15dB or so. That's a spit in the wind figure. Someone else may have a more accurate one.


----------



## bigshot

silverears said:


> You like them 'O mighty one?  Currawong said they sound dark, but I guess it's preference though.  Graphzzz plzzz.


 
  
 Go look em up yourself on inner fidelity and compare the response to the Stax above. My sound engineer buddy and I did a tone sweep by ear (which is the easiest way to apply the Fletcher Munson curve) and we found that in the core frequencies, the Oppos were within +/- 5dB from 40 to 10kHz.


----------



## miceblue

bigshot said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, the F-M curve is made based on what? Diffused field or?
> ...



How different is that from the Olive-Welti model?


----------



## bigshot

miceblue said:


> How different is that from the Olive-Welti model?


 
  
 Dunno. Like I said, since it varies by volume level, I use a spit in the wind method.
  
 More info here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour


----------



## castleofargh

I like Olive&Welti the best. all they say makes lot of sense, the way they got the result too. they already pretty much brought harmony to speakers, so I had full confidence in them for headphones. also that's purely egoistical but something flat with their compensation curve happens to be very close to what I hear flat and prefer (ER4's signature never sounded neutral for me).
  
 Tyll decided he will slightly tweak the curve for his own database. trying to understand why, I though that maybe it is more fitting with his particular measurement settings(calibration reasons?). I don't know and didn't really understand that move. they did all that job so that one day we could at long last, all use the same compensation curve and all call neutral the same signature. instead of electrically neutral, er4 neutral, "I like how that sounds" neutral...
 and the first thing he did was to tweak it to his own convenience. doesn't that entirely defeat the purpose of such a curve?


----------



## bigshot

Not to sound like a broken record, but "good enough for human ears" applies here too. I don't see what the point of a frequency response graph is if it doesn't represent what human beings hear. No one that I know of takes equal loudness curves into account when they chart the response of headphones, so what you are actually looking at is how these headphones sound to a dummy head equipped with microphones. Well thanks, but that doesn't exactly tell me what these headphones will sound like on my own noggin. It will only give me a general idea what they sound like in relation to *other* headphones.
  
 Personally, when I test equipment, I'm doing it for no one else by myself. I don't need measurements accurate to .5dB. My goal is always to keep my eye on the goal, which is good sounding music. With human ears and the variety of music, there is always a little "wiggle room". And testing by ear with tones tells me *exactly* what I want to know... do these headphones have an AUDIBLY flat response? I think a lot of the reason that people have the idea that flat response sounds thin and shrill is because they think "measured flat response" is the same as "audible flat response". It isn't.
  
 Since Fletcher Munson varies by volume, I usually test at a fairly loud listening level and then just turn on the Dynamic Range Compensation loudness control on my Yamaha receiver. That adjusts for Fletcher Munson at lower volumes and does a bang up job of keeping the response the same at every volume level.


----------



## miceblue

Many discussions about audio in a nutshell?

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2hO4_UEe-4[/video]



The HD800 doesn't sound very good on amp X because X amp can't "drive" it properly.


----------



## ab initio

miceblue said:


> Many discussions about audio in a nutshell?
> 
> 
> 
> The HD800 doesn't sound very good on amp X because X amp can't "drive" it properly.


 

 Mind Virus!


----------



## MacedonianHero

miceblue said:


> Many discussions about audio in a nutshell?
> 
> 
> 
> The HD800 doesn't sound very good on amp X because X amp can't "drive" it properly.


 
  
 I'm a big fan of CGP Grey...everyone should check out his YouTube Channel!


----------



## castleofargh

"something uninformative" with history channel's logo. ^_^
 but at least half audiophiles have positive illusions, not negative ones. do we also need to let them believe in the stupid thing that makes no sense, and knowingly lie with them(with the risk of creating more of them in the process)? because if so, then I've been doing real bad up till now.


----------



## SilverEars

I found this in the Chord Hugo thread, and recommended to get a regular old USB cable.  Read this.  Wow, high-end section is a jungle.
  
 http://www.hifidelit.com/products/ppa-red-usb-cable


----------



## blades

silverears said:


> Wow, high-end section is a jungle.


 
 And how.  It is astounding what you get with a combination of hearing bias and magazine reviewers who need to keep the supply of stuff to review coming in.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

In more cheerful news, this is making the rounds on the first page of the Portable Headphones forum 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/726569/review-tour-somic-mh412-viper4android-the-put-up-or-shut-up-review-and-tour


----------



## roadcykler

blades said:


> And how.  It is astounding what you get with a combination of hearing bias and magazine reviewers who need to keep the supply of stuff to review coming in.


 
 The reviewers at Stereophile were asked how they choose what they review and the answer was, when they attend shows like CES or Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, they hear music from systems or certain components that sound good to them and they then contact the manufacturer and ask them to send the item to review. So they're starting from a point where they already like what they hear, so unless something wildly unusual happens, the review will be positive.
  
 That's just one reason why you almost never (if ever) read a bad review.


----------



## davidsh

joe bloggs said:


> In more cheerful news, this is making the rounds on the first page of the Portable Headphones forum
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Interesting stuff going on there, I suppose you corrected for 6-8 kHz ear canal resonance, or..? I mean that varies from person to person after all.


----------



## MasterKuni

I would like to take this moment to thank you all for being paragons of sanity in the often wildly misguided world of HiFi.  I can only stomach reading so many recommendations for tube amps and $500 cables, or 6moons reviews describing my headphones as being "dark and chewy" before my brain starts leaking out of my ears.


----------



## SilverEars

I notice NAD got sold off to Danish AudioNord.  I saw this on the AudioNord's website 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, hope NAD is still separate from them.


----------



## miceblue

masterkuni said:


> I would like to take this moment to thank you all for being paragons of sanity in the often wildly misguided world of HiFi.  I can only stomach reading so many recommendations for tube amps and $500 cables, or 6moons reviews describing my headphones as being "dark and chewy" before my brain starts leaking out of my ears.



I never trusted 6moons' so-called "reviews." They always seems like a bunch of baloney; I'm surprised some people actually read and believe them... :/


----------



## bigshot

This is the best 6moons review ever...
 http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/edge3/edge3.html


----------



## miceblue

Oh gawd, anything but the stone. How much did they get paid to "review" that? T_T


----------



## Cankin

It has to be a joke, look at the manufacturer's site
  
 http://www.machinadynamica.com/


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Look legit IMO Everybody should use Dark Matter to clean their CDs to ensure no foreign materials could have seeped through the CDs after every playthrough.


----------



## spook76

kamijoismyhero said:


> Look legit IMO Everybody should use Dark Matter to clean their CDs to ensure no foreign materials could have seeped through the CDs after every playthrough.




Forget selling dark matter to suckers, they should submit their findings to the Nobel Committee. Proof of the existence of dark matter is an instant $1.2M to accompany the Nobel Prize in Physics.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

I think selling it to audiophiles around the world would net them higher revenue than just 1.2 mil, possibly


----------



## oly22

for CDs, jitter is about the only thing you have to worry about. But there are algorithms to deal with that.


----------



## stv014

oly22 said:


> for CDs, jitter is about the only thing you have to worry about. But there are algorithms to deal with that.


 
  
 If you mean jitter reading the CD (causing skips and stutter), that is mostly not a problem on newer drives. I found that cheap DVD-RW drives in PCs can read audio CDs correctly at full speed with no software error correction, unless the disk is bad. Although the errors might indeed be fixed by algorithms in the firmware. An old CD-ROM drive I had in the 1990s did require software jitter correction.
  
 Jitter on the DAC output should not be an audible issue with competently designed hardware.


----------



## blades

oly22 said:


> for CDs, jitter is about the only thing you have to worry about. But there are algorithms to deal with that.


 
  
 Not necessary since jitter isn't audible.


----------



## SilverEars

I would think the information is buffered before processing, so the CD is just to read and buffered so that there is not timing issues of reading the bits straight from the CD.


----------



## davidsh

silverears said:


> I would think the information is buffered before processing, so the CD is just to read and buffered so that there is not timing issues of reading the bits straight from the CD.


 
 Yet, you still need some kind of processing to determine whether you got all the bits correct eg. to avoid jitter. A buffer gives more room for corrections, doesn't correct by itself.


----------



## esldude

davidsh said:


> Yet, you still need some kind of processing to determine whether you got all the bits correct eg. to avoid jitter. A buffer gives more room for corrections, doesn't correct by itself.


 

 Well jitter is not corrupted bits.  Jitter is a timing variation upon conversion to analog.  So if bits are read off the CD into a buffer, the clock out of the buffer will determine the level of jitter experienced.  The signal off the CD could have been very jittery with correct bits, then buffered and clocked out the remaining jitter is whatever the buffer has.


----------



## bigshot

Jitter in the amount in typical home audio equipment, even the cheapest equipment is between 10 and 100 times below the threshold of audibility. Jitter is not an issue.


----------



## miceblue

I'm going to put these here to remind myself to go through them eventually.
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/jitter1_e.html
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1093jitter/

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FyKVZ9D3E0[/video]


[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT_1UATci3c[/video]


^ Not objective at all, but I still want to watch them some time


----------



## bigshot

Junk videos


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> This is the best 6moons review ever...
> http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/edge3/edge3.html


 

 This review article has significantly devalued PhDs from the University of Virginia and University of Illinois. The Cavalier's and Illini's Usnews engineering school ranking just dropped about 50 spots. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Cheers


----------



## ab initio

miceblue said:


> I'm going to put these here to remind myself to go through them eventually.
> http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/jitter1_e.html
> http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1093jitter/
> 
> ...


 

  
 Cheers


----------



## miceblue

Wow, yeah those videos were pretty terribad. Might as well ask a stranger for some advice. XD





bigshot said:


> This is the best 6moons review ever...
> http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/edge3/edge3.html



Actually I just looked at the 0.3 MP cell phone camera photos they have there. What the heck is that? A jar of potpourri?


----------



## spook76

ab initio said:


> This review article has significantly devalued PhDs from the University of Virginia and University of Illinois. The Cavalier's and Illini's Usnews engineering school ranking just dropped about 50 spots.
> 
> Cheers




As an alumnus of the University of Virginia School of Law you should never trust their engineers. The engineering school is by far its weakest college. Virginia was founded by Thomas Jefferson as a liberal arts institution. 

We joked at the law school anytime something broke it must have been made by the UVA engineers.


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> Junk videos


 

 Well it does feature comedic content.


----------



## bigshot

The snake oil salesman gets a penny for your hit.


----------



## bigshot

This graph was just posted over in the headphone forum as the "audible" differences between different pads on the same cans. Big difference, huh?
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/685704/lightbox/post/10827101/id/1179189


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> This graph was just posted over in the headphone forum as the "audible" differences between different pads on the same cans. Big difference, huh?
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/685704/lightbox/post/10827101/id/1179189


 
  
 To be fair, in the two octave range from 2kHz to 8kHz, it looks like a significant (audible) difference between the stock pads and the leather pads. Here, the response varies between stock being +3ish--5ish dB in the 1--5kHz to the stock pads being -3ish--5ish dB in the 6--8kHz. In this plot, it looks like the leather pads really smooths out the peak and valley seen in the stock pads in that two octave range.
  
 Otherwise, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 To be honest, considering that it was _measured_, the difference here seems negligibly important compared to things like the more accurate transient response of DSD128, ensuring your DAC has < 100 ps jitter, and making sure your power cables are 6 AWG solid core sliver and that your interconnects cost no less than 10,000, such as this mid-fi choice. obvious sarcasm!
  
 Cheers


----------



## GrindingThud

I'd be interested to see what the measured isolation to pink noise is between the two pad types on any phone. I've sensed on open phones in uncontrolled listening that leather or vinyl pads sound more open/airy to me with no material playing (unplugged on head) than fuzzy pads....it could be my imagination too, as I've never specifically measured or blind tested it. The FR seems to be close enough to say the pads are not coloring played material....I wonder if they color the leaked environment differently.


----------



## bigshot

There are a couple of things that determine audibility... The dB of the deviation and the width of the range of frequencies affected. 3dB would be audible, but I really doubt it would be audible at the bottom of a narrow dip like that. All of those pads would sound the same. Any difference would be imperceptable because the auditory memory for that slight of a difference wouldn't last through the time it takes to take one pair of headphones off and put another on. Also, the manufacturing deviation between different copies of the same make and model of headphone might be in that same range of difference.


----------



## Kaffeemann

Definitely looks audible to me.
 Actually, when I tweak my parametric EQ settings even 0.5 dB changes are audible if they are broad enough. Of course I _know _that I changed the FR, but what can I do


----------



## cjl

That's a narrow band, sure, but it's a narrow band right smack in the middle of the most sensitive region of hearing. I'd definitely think a 3 or 4 dB shift in that frequency range would be audible.


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> Also, the manufacturing deviation between different copies of the same make and model of headphone might be in that same range of difference.


 
  
 I think this is a pretty important point.
  
 Cheers


----------



## bigshot

kaffeemann said:


> Definitely looks audible to me.
> Actually, when I tweak my parametric EQ settings even 0.5 dB changes are audible if they are broad enough. Of course I _know _that I changed the FR, but what can I do


 
  
 Try telling a .5dB difference with a two second delay as you change headphones!


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> Try telling a .5dB difference with a two second delay as you change headphones!




I think you are forgetting that often subtle improvements only become apparent after long periods of listening and burn in, usually about 10 hours or so after the window for a money-back return has expired! 

Cheers



THIS COMMENT IS FULL OF IRONY


----------



## bigshot

I bet most people don't detect the irony in that comment. Humor is a dangerous business. Over in the thread, someone is basically telling me that same thing. He left the smiley off the end of his post by accident. (smiley here)


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> I bet most people don't detect the irony in that comment. Humor is a dangerous business. Over in the thread, someone is basically telling me that same thing. He left the smiley off the end of his post by accident. (smiley here)


 
  
 There, fixed it!
  
 Cheers


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> There are a couple of things that determine audibility... The dB of the deviation and the width of the range of frequencies affected. 3dB would be audible, but I really doubt it would be audible at the bottom of a narrow dip like that. All of those pads would sound the same. Any difference would be imperceptable because the auditory memory for that slight of a difference wouldn't last through the time it takes to take one pair of headphones off and put another on. Also, the manufacturing deviation between different copies of the same make and model of headphone might be in that same range of difference.


 
  
 I didn't read that thread because I'm not a terribly interested party (other than science!) but do you know if these measurements are the same headphones with the different pads replaced? or if they are all individual headphones?
  
 I've seen a bunch of different "same model number, different individual" measurements from Tyll's website where the differences are of similar order as they are in this plot. Ive seen the same order of difference from left/right channels in the _same_ headphone. The uncertainty of placing the headphones in the correct position on his test head lead to bigger discrepancies in measured response....
  
 Cheers


----------



## bigshot

ab initio said:


> THIS COMMENT IS FULL OF IRONY


 
  
 Just like Facebook is doing to posts from The Onion now!


----------



## anetode

That peak is a controlled resonance, it hangs around a bit in the time domain. It is an unavoidable result of the acoustic design of a planar magnetic. The earpad can be used to damp this resonance.
  
 BTW, Tyll's measurements for each phone/pad arrangement are averaged. There exist other independent measurements which show the same effect.


----------



## bigshot

ab initio said:


> I didn't read that thread because I'm not a terribly interested party (other than science!) but do you know if these measurements are the same headphones with the different pads replaced? or if they are all individual headphones?


 
  
 Not sure. When differences get down to 2 or 3 dB though, there are a million reasons why it really doesn't matter. It's ironic that they are that worried about a couple of dB in headphone pads, but they have a dozen different brands of headphones with response curves all over the map, and use a tube amp full of dodgy specs to push them. I get the feeling that a lot of these folks have no feeling for scale or proportion.
  
 Maybe I'm crazy, but I would think that if you don't like the remarkably balanced response of the PM-1s, you don't start switching pads... You look for a set of headphones that has a response curve more in line with what you want. And if you feel that you need 2 or 3 dB here or there, you just EQ the fine tuning of the response. But as they all say over there, none of these suggestions make any sense at all. (IRONY ALERT)


----------



## bigshot

anetode said:


> That peak is a controlled resonance, it hangs around a bit in the time domain. It is an unavoidable result of the acoustic design of a planar magnetic.


 
  
 I actually think he has the peak a little lower than where it actually sits. My check of the response showed the peak at 8kHz. That may be due to manufacturing variance but it was in the same place, if not the same dB boost on two different sets of PM-1s I checked. 
  
 Edit: Now that I look at it again, it may be that the copies I checked had less of a boost the first bump and more in the second. The dip hit at the exact same spot. It's all within 2 or 3 dB of what I came up with though.
  
 Quote:


anetode said:


> BTW, Tyll's measurements for each phone/pad arrangement are averaged.


 
  
 One more reason why a two or three dB deviation is pretty unimportant.


----------



## SilverEars

ab initio said:


> I think you are forgetting that often subtle improvements only become apparent after long periods of listening and burn in, *usually about 10 hours or so after the window for a money-back return has expired!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 ibasso DX90 comes with burn in cable.  Instruction manual says must burn-in for 400 hours.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  The DX90 thread is full of people looking for Samsung or Japanese batteries to get better SQ.  Also this is the thread where the SQ changing with firmware began.  This thread puts the phile in audiophile.


----------



## spook76

silverears said:


> ibasso DX90 comes with burn in cable.  Instruction manual says must burn-in for 400 hours.     The DX90 thread is full of people looking for Samsung or Japanese batteries to get better SQ.  Also this is the thread where the SQ changing with firmware began.  This thread puts the phile in audiophile.




You have to be kidding, a burn in cable. It is a SOLID STATE player there is no "burn in". Voodoo science.


----------



## bigshot

An interesting article by the man who invented "Brilliant Pebbles" (tm) from none other than Stereophile!
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/stove-piping-and-audiophiles
  
 Read between the lines as he makes fun of the customers he's writing the article for!


----------



## anetode

> Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I actually think he has the peak a little lower than where it actually sits. My check of the response showed the peak at 8kHz. That may be due to manufacturing variance but it was in the same place, if not the same dB boost on two different sets of PM-1s I checked.
> 
> Edit: Now that I look at it again, it may be that the copies I checked had less of a boost the first bump and more in the second. The dip hit at the exact same spot. It's all within 2 or 3 dB of what I came up with though.


 
   
I should've been specific: I was talking about the first resonance near 4khz. After 5khz the circuit approximation of the response becomes less applicable, though the same factors continue to contribute. I've never heard the PM-1, but with the HE-560 there was a similar pad fiasco. The 560 is a fairly neutral headphone but the equivalent peak at ~3khz contributes makes some vocals seem a little more forward. While that anomaly remains regardless of pad choice, I've noticed that it is slightly less bothersome with the pair of pads I've chosen to keep on there. Of course this peak and the pad effects aren't noticeable on all tracks, but over time you get to know the character of a headphone and to expect a little bit of a coloration around a specific note.

  
 As for consistency of measurements, the averaging is meant to account for measurement abnormalities at the time, though of course a response may still be off. Plus even Tyll's graphs become more unreliable after 10khz. That's why Tyll and purrin/ultrabike/hans/others measure the same mods, sometimes even the same headphones to see if the results are reproducible. Yes, even 2-3db changes


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> An interesting article by the man who invented "Brilliant Pebbles" (tm) from none other than Stereophile!
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/stove-piping-and-audiophiles
> 
> Read between the lines as he makes fun of the customers he's writing the article for!


 
  
 It was pretty much a cut-and-paste job from wikipedia (or was it the other way around?) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Cheers


----------



## bigshot

anetode said:


> I should've been specific: I was talking about the first resonance near 4khz.


 
  
 I showed a small bump of +2db at 2.5kHz, then a dip down to -3dB at 4kHz and a rise up to +3 at 6dB. Similar but peaking a bit to the right. Very close though.


----------



## ferday

bigshot said:


> An interesting article by the man who invented "Brilliant Pebbles" (tm) from none other than Stereophile!
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/stove-piping-and-audiophiles
> 
> Read between the lines as he makes fun of the customers he's writing the article for!


 
  
 the comments were brilliant.  that was a fun read


----------



## trick

Do you guys think there is a difference between amps other than power and the point of when you hear distortion? I'm referring to the "more open soundstage" and "warm amp" beliefs about tube amps. I cannot hear a difference between my fiio e10 and schiit Lyr. Other than the buzzing from the lyr when turned up louder. If I use the e10 as the dac, I cannot hear anything on my q701. Anyone with a differing opinion who has done any kind of blind tests?


----------



## bigshot

If soundstage is affected, the crosstalk is WAY out of spec. Modern solid state amps are usually audibly transparent... or at least the good ones are.


----------



## cjl

It's also possible that the frequency response is way out of spec, since our spatial cues don't come equally from all frequencies. Regardless, if soundstage is significantly affected, something is very wrong.


----------



## miceblue

Since this is the sound science thread, there can only be one answer: all amps sound the same unless they're seriously flawed. End of discussion, nothing more to add; just accept it.


----------



## castleofargh

sound from an amp (or a dac) to me is like a coca cola. I want to get one anywhere and still have the same resulting taste. and when a coke does taste different or has no gaz, I don't tend to think that I prefer that original more "natural" taste. instead I look for a "best before 1448" on the bottle out of curiosity, and through it away with fear of food poisonning.
  
 but a lot of people in headfi believe than the job of an amp/dac is to EQ the headphone, and go look specifically for those amps and dacs that do not sound right. of course some manufacturers (some because they're too bad at what they do, some on purpose) are happy to oblige and sell products for those people. so yes some amps do sound different in a lot of ways.
 the question is whether you think it's interesting to try them and find whatever synergy goes on with your headphone, or if like me you think those products are garbage. ^_^


----------



## GrindingThud

No. That being said, audible noise, noise floor / hiss, hum or buzz are unacceptable flaws in a modern system. If one can double blind and detect if the system is on or off, it is severely flawed IMHO. Any of the previously mentioned unacceptable artifacts might affect how soundstage is perceived. 



trick said:


> Do you guys think there is a difference between amps other than power and the point of when you hear distortion? I'm referring to the "more open soundstage" and "warm amp" beliefs about tube amps. I cannot hear a difference between my fiio e10 and schiit Lyr. Other than the buzzing from the lyr when turned up louder. If I use the e10 as the dac, I cannot hear anything on my q701. Anyone with a differing opinion who has done any kind of blind tests?


----------



## anetode

miceblue said:


> Since this is the sound science thread, there can only be one answer: all amps sound the same unless they're seriously flawed. End of discussion, nothing more to add; just accept it.


 

 Science is kind of a put up or shut up proposition.


----------



## bigshot

Except sound science keeps having to put up with subjectivists who don't do the latter.


----------



## roadcykler

trick said:


> Do you guys think there is a difference between amps other than power and the point of when you hear distortion? I'm referring to the "more open soundstage" and "warm amp" beliefs about tube amps. I cannot hear a difference between my fiio e10 and schiit Lyr. Other than the buzzing from the lyr when turned up louder. If I use the e10 as the dac, I cannot hear anything on my q701. Anyone with a differing opinion who has done any kind of blind tests?


 
 I would venture a guess, based on years of observing humans and their idiosyncrasies, that the reason tube amps are considered "warm" is simply because the tubes actually get warm (or even hot). 
  
 There really is no such thing as warm sound. There is sound that is missing something like some of the higher frequencies or emphasizes the mid-range or bass frequencies.


----------



## bigshot

I've dived off the deep end into a new area... I bought an Oppo region free blu-ray player and an external blu-ray burner and I am figuring out how blu-ray video and audio works. I have a few blu-rays that have messed up audio and I want to strip out the video and audio tracks and re-edit them to put them in proper sync. It's VERY complicated with multiple programs and formats, but I think I have it figured out. The Oppo also lets me hear multichannel SACD for the first time. (My old SACD deck had analogue out and my receiver didn't have 5:1 analogue inputs.) I'm ordering multichannel SACDs and blu-rays from other regions to experiment with. Every once in a while I get one of these technological manias and I can't stop until I figure it all out. Kind of like the kid who gets given the pocket watch and immediately takes it all apart and tries to figure out how to put it together again.


----------



## bigshot

Also, I am so sold on psycho acoustic enhancement using DSPs, I got an Oppo player with Darbee image enhancement. It's a state of the art video processor designed to enhance the visual cues that determine depth in 2D images. I can't wait to run it through its paces on my ten foot hidef projection system.


----------



## cjl

roadcykler said:


> I would venture a guess, based on years of observing humans and their idiosyncrasies, that the reason tube amps are considered "warm" is simply because the tubes actually get warm (or even hot).


 
 I would guess that the fact that they stick out of the top of the amp and glow also has something to do with it. I have the feeling that if you built a competently designed tube amp, but put the tubes inside the amp enclosure (and made the enclosure completely opaque), and then handed it to an audiophile to evaluate without telling them that it was a tube amp, they wouldn't describe it any different from a similarly designed (and identically appearing) solid state amp.


----------



## miceblue

roadcykler said:


> trick said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys think there is a difference between amps other than power and the point of when you hear distortion? I'm referring to the "more open soundstage" and "warm amp" beliefs about tube amps. I cannot hear a difference between my fiio e10 and schiit Lyr. Other than the buzzing from the lyr when turned up louder. If I use the e10 as the dac, I cannot hear anything on my q701. Anyone with a differing opinion who has done any kind of blind tests?
> ...



Warm is a commonly used audio term to describe a frequency response with a clockwise tilt (more bass than treble), a la HD650.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-v-z

Also used to describe the lower-midrange/upper-bass:
http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm


----------



## cjl

miceblue said:


> Warm is a commonly used audio term to describe a frequency response with a clockwise tilt (more bass than treble), a la HD650.
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-v-z
> 
> Also used to describe the lower-midrange/upper-bass:
> http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm


 

 Yep. But it's also used to describe a great many tube amps which, when measured, have basically a ruler flat response.


----------



## bigshot

Tube amps are warm, just like copper. And silver and solid state are cool. It's *Synesthesia*


----------



## davidsh

cjl said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > Warm is a commonly used audio term to describe a frequency response with a clockwise tilt (more bass than treble), a la HD650.
> ...


 
 Second order harmonics tend to be described as warm and pleasant as well, though?


----------



## miceblue

Lol
This just made my day. 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/702787/chord-hugo/8010#post_10849934


----------



## davidsh

miceblue said:


> Lol
> This just made my day.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/702787/chord-hugo/8010#post_10849934


 
 Soooooo trivial and boring stuff, it just makes me sad (at best)


----------



## Joe Bloggs

miceblue said:


> Lol
> This just made my day.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/702787/chord-hugo/8010#post_10849934




Are the typos intentional?


----------



## roadcykler

joe bloggs said:


> Are the typos intentional?


 
 Listed as being from Sweden so English probably isn't his first language.


----------



## trick

bigshot said:


> Also, I am so sold on psycho acoustic enhancement using DSPs, I got an Oppo player with Darbee image enhancement. It's a state of the art video processor designed to enhance the visual cues that determine depth in 2D images. I can't wait to run it through its paces on my ten foot hidef projection system.


 
 So you think you're mister big shot?    lol I just really wanted to say that... 
  
 I must say, I think this is the best thread I have seen on this site.


----------



## blades

cjl said:


> Yep. But it's also used to describe a great many tube amps which, when measured, have basically a ruler flat response.


 
  
 Actually very few tube amps have a ruler flat frequency response and those that do are mostly indistinguishable from solid state amps in a bias controlled listening comparison.  At least that is what occurred with our tests.


----------



## castleofargh

blades said:


> cjl said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. But it's also used to describe a great many tube amps which, when measured, have basically a ruler flat response.
> ...


 

 what I always found ironic is seeing how many hirez fans are also tube fans. when hi-res is supposed to bring all the ultrasonic sounds and "precision". while tube's "house sound" is most commonly known for rolled off high frequencies and distortion.
 and those kind of contradictions are everywhere in the audiophile world.
  
 we all make choices and don't have to justify anything to anybody(unless it's a crime and you're poor ^_^). it's when some try to pretend that their own subjective preferences are the better sound(more natural, warmer, real, like the live concert..) that the nonsense begins. the distortions so important that we all need to buy a 1000+$ DAC, the unbearable -90db noise from bad jitter and the ugly -96db quantization noise of a redbook track are an everyday problem to real audio quality, it seems from reading headfi. but suddenly the -50db distortion from the tube amp I like isn't a problem at all, let's talk about my new usb cable instead, the improvement is "audible"...
 I don't know when subjectivism became a magic pass for irrational arguments? "I can say what I want because audio is subjective". just a sad joke of an excuse to avoid thinking or admit to ever be wrong.
  
 we could all have much more interesting talks if people could just put their oversized ego aside and admit that what they like just isn't the perfect sound. I enjoy a good sub bass rumble and abuse that part with EQ from time to time. but I don't try to get all the rumble lovers behind me as a cult and come up with ways to describe the sound I enjoy as being nice/natural/real, while flat signature is cold/boring/unrealistic. because I'm not selfconscious to the point of thinking that my tastes can rule over reality.
 the only way for a tube amp to sound different from a good SS amp, is to go away from the original signal one way or another. it can be pleasant but can never be called "better" or "more natural". because what is natural is the real deal, and keeping distortion low and signature flat all along the audio chain is the only way to get close to the original real deal.
 I don't mind tube amps, I mind people saying that tube amps are what they never where.


----------



## blades

For sure.  In my younger days I liked the tube sound myself but as I've aged I'll miss the highs if they are rolled off.  I have a tendency to feel like the sounds I hear from audio systems is on the dark side and I want to brighten things up a bit.  A tube amp is not a good way to do that.  Nothing wrong with preferences.  I just tend to interject when I read nonsense on the forums.


----------



## bigshot

Flat and clean definitely sounds more real, because reality is flat and clean.


----------



## cjl

blades said:


> Actually very few tube amps have a ruler flat frequency response and those that do are mostly indistinguishable from solid state amps in a bias controlled listening comparison.  At least that is what occurred with our tests.


 
 Very few? Really? I don't doubt your tests, but I would have expected more tube amps to be competently designed. A tube amp certainly can have a ruler flat response (and, as you said, when they do, they are indistinguishable from solid state).


----------



## esldude

cjl said:


> Very few? Really? I don't doubt your tests, but I would have expected more tube amps to be competently designed. A tube amp certainly can have a ruler flat response (and, as you said, when they do, they are indistinguishable from solid state).


 

 Well I would say few have ruler flat response at full power.  Some fair number do at low percentages of their power levels.  And then of that group that do very few indeed have ruler flat response into an actual loudspeaker load.  Now headphone amps probably have a better chance, but many of them don't either.  Bottom line, the great majority of tube amps have non-flat response into the loads they are used with.


----------



## Rajikaru

castleofargh said:


> what I always found ironic is seeing how many hirez fans are also tube fans. when hi-res is supposed to bring all the ultrasonic sounds and "precision". while tube's "house sound" is most commonly known for rolled off high frequencies and distortion.
> and those kind of contradictions are everywhere in the audiophile world.
> 
> we all make choices and don't have to justify anything to anybody(unless it's a crime and you're poor ^_^). it's when some try to pretend that their own subjective preferences are the better sound(more natural, warmer, real, like the live concert..) that the nonsense begins. the distortions so important that we all need to buy a 1000+$ DAC, the unbearable -90db noise from bad jitter and the ugly -96db quantization noise of a redbook track are an everyday problem to real audio quality, it seems from reading headfi. but suddenly the -50db distortion from the tube amp I like isn't a problem at all, let's talk about my new usb cable instead, the improvement is "audible"...
> I don't know when subjectivism became a magic pass for irrational arguments? "I can say what I want because audio is subjective". just a sad joke of an excuse to avoid thinking or admit to ever be wrong.


 
 I see struggle with Sound Science is that it tries to explain, using rationality, science, and engineering know how...
 ...what is essentially a systemic psychopathological and sociological phenomenon. 

 Like in the Matrix, there are 'programs' like the Merovingian, the Oracle, the Architect, there are persistent agents in the audiophile community whose main function is to alleviate pre-and post-purchase anxiety of people who _want_ to spend money on expensive gear. They service a segment who really couldn't care less about DBT results or if something even makes rational or engineering sense. That's why they are persistent. There's always a need for that. 

 After all, Audiophile equipment is not a basic, life or death need in the Maslow Heirarchy.  'Belonging', on the other hand...This would explain why there are certain cliques which exhibit behavior  similar to high school gangs, college fraternities, and sports fans (i.e. 'Back me up bro!!!!' woot woot!!! Sabre sucks!!! O2/ODAC sucks!!! Go...whatever!!!) 

 One doesn't need a degree in Psychology to realize how juvenile that all is. 

 On one hand, "We never free a mind once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go." - Morpheus. That and 'hey, it's their money.' On the other hand, there are still many who care about sound and go into this hobby armed with a healthy amount of skepticism. 

 IMO, Sound Science also has an absolutely essential systemic function.  Ever watched the film, Snowpiercer? If this forum was a train, Sound Science is the back of the train.  It's about balance.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Snowpiercer didn't seem to explain the point of the back of the train thoroughly enough IMO. From what I gather, those were people brought on the train based on mercy. Their existence didn't seem to have a purpose. It didn't seem like they were doing anything helpful other than living. Those guys could have easily been left off and the train would still function. 

The sound science section is a place to discuss science of sound and other technical stuff. It has a purpose.


----------



## bigshot

rajikaru said:


> I see struggle with Sound Science is that it tries to explain, using rationality, science, and engineering know how...
> ...what is essentially a systemic psychopathological and sociological phenomenon.


 
  
 People always overthink things and let OCD get the best of them. The purpose of "sound science" as it exists here isn't to split the atom or find the cure for cancer. It's to make your stereo sound better. That is actually a pretty straightforward goal. These are basic principles that make complete sense if you don't surrender to the temptation to artificially inflate the importance of trivia. It isn't hard at all to go out and buy a very reasonably priced system that does the job and sounds great.
  
 The problem is that the audiophile press is devoted to obfuscating and mystifying something that isn't at all difficult or magical. Why do audio magazines and web sites deliberately make it hard on their readers? Simple. They care more about their advertisers than their readers. They want the readers to believe spending more money means better sound. They want them to feel insecure about their system... They try to convince people that MAYBE if you buy a different DAC or a fancy cable it will improve things you don't even know needs fixing.
  
 All of this is a fairly recent thing in the overall history of sound reproduction. Before digital audio, hifi sets and stereos were put together by practical people who knew how everything worked and could make judgement calls based on facts instead of vague worries. They grabbed a soldering iron and a schematic and went to town. Digital audio introduced sound quality that met and exceeded all of those practically minded hifi nuts' dreams. Perfect sound forever. The problem is, the average Joe no longer understood how sound reproduction worked. It was a strange technology that consisted of chopping sound up into little bits and turning it into patterns of 1s and 0s.
  
 Lack of understanding the fundamental principles leaves the door open for the mystical charlatans to come in and obfuscate and herd people toward spending too much money on things that don't make a lick of difference. The thing that really puzzles me however is the people who understand how digital audio works, but get bogged down in minutia like jitter or inaudible noise floors. Why do they fuss so much over things that ears can't hear? The only answer I can come up with is that to them, the hobby is about noodling with technology, not listening to music.
  
 Ultimately, music should the end goal. Assemble a kick ass system and stop worrying about it- focus on music from there one. But no one seems to do that. They churn through equipment and blow through money like water. Me? I spend a LOT more time building the music library on my music server than fussing about the equipment. That's the way it should be.


----------



## Rajikaru

kamijoismyhero said:


> The sound science section is a place to discuss science of sound and other technical stuff. It has a purpose.


 
  
 If you ignore the class warfare implications in the movie and think opposing ideologies (objective vs. subjective, consumerism vs. practicality), that would be my analogy. Other than that, I agree with what you wrote.


----------



## Rajikaru

bigshot said:


> Ultimately, music should the end goal. Assemble a kick ass system and stop worrying about it- focus on music from there one. But no one seems to do that. They churn through equipment and blow through money like water. Me? I spend a LOT more time building the music library on my music server than fussing about the equipment. That's the way it should be.


 
  
 Agreed.
  
 Personally, right now between a STAX, a planar, and an Audio Technica M50...
 Clearly different sound signature and presentation? Yes.
 One technically better than the other in some areas? Yes. 
 Can I enjoy music with any of them? Yes, actually.
  
 It's also more about the music with me these days.


----------



## bigshot

Just get one really good pair of headphones and an equalizer and you can have any of them you want.


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> Just get one really good pair of headphones and an equalizer and you can have any of them you want.


 
 Just get one really _linear_ pair of headphones and an equalizer and you can have any of them you want.
  
 Cheers


----------



## anetode

ab initio said:


> Just get one really _linear_ pair of headphones and an equalizer and you can have any of them you want.
> 
> Cheers


 
  
 So the M50 is out of the running.


----------



## Kaffeemann

ab initio said:


> Just get one really _linear_ pair of headphones and an equalizer and you can have any of them you want.
> 
> Cheers


 
  
 I wish there was something like that


----------



## Huggtand

I just want so say a BIG thank you to all the people at sound science who takes time to explain audio for the rest of us.
  
 Before I joined Head-Fi I never thougt I would sit and read a 129 pages thread how digital audio functions (24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!), and enjoying it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Keep up the good work!


----------



## davidsh

You can't quite have the same kick ass bass from a stax lambda model as many of the modern planars in my experience. EQ or not.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

What do you guys think of the sound mastering theory that there should be an optimal general frequency response to music? I've added a reference line to my spectrum analyzer modelled after the frequency response of good-sounding pop to my ears and tried shaping the "taste-shaping" equalizer on the left to push other music closer to the reference line. (whereas the equalizer on the right is for correcting the speaker system.)

Of course, this only works for those genres like pop and rock that have something like a semi-constant wall of sound, but it's arguably these genres that are most often in need of such shaping anyway?


----------



## SilverEars

Joe, I was thinking the same for different genres of music as I was even thinking that some headphone work better with wider genre vs other that are limited(and this is based on their FR, which is obvious), so why not have the source be changed accordingly to the type of genre of music which can be predicted to have heavily compressed output?
  
 Have you heard of the RWAK mods?  The new RWAK240 mod I believe does two things.  Replaces stock amp with JFET and adds capacitor at the output line to have more power readily available for low end when needed and make it sound with more body(I'm assuming this counters the "clinical" aspect) when needed according to the RW site.  The mod is $500.
  
 I believe people that would seek this mod are those that don't like the "clinical" sounds they get from a source that is more revealing to the master.  The "clinical" sound they are referring to is probably of modern genre of music which was produced without a revealing setup in mind.
  
 Why spend $500 on hardware mod?  Why not do this in software?  Have a setting that would make these revealing source more forgiving of the dynamic compression of the master.


----------



## bigshot

huggtand said:


> Before I joined Head-Fi I never thougt I would sit and read a 129 pages thread how digital audio functions (24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!), and enjoying it


 
  
 It really doesn't take 129 pages to explain, but we get some pretty nutty people through here occasionally that require more hand holding.


----------



## bigshot

davidsh said:


> You can't quite have the same kick ass bass from a stax lambda model as many of the modern planars in my experience. EQ or not.


 
  
 The headphone has to be capable of producing the frequency in the first place. You can't EQ what isn't there. But if you find a headphone that can produce as low as the Stax, you could certainly make it sound more "kick ass". (But if that is important to you, speakers would blow the Stax away.)


----------



## bigshot

silverears said:


> Joe, I was thinking the same for different genres of music as I was even thinking that some headphone work better with wider genre vs other that are limited(and this is based on their FR, which is obvious), so why not have the source be changed accordingly to the type of genre of music which can be predicted to have heavily compressed output?


 
  
 Correcting for lousy engineering is another thing altogether. EQ won't do everything. Dynamic expansion, filters to soften clipping, etc can help as far as they can. If I really liked the music, but the engineering sounded like a horse's hind end, I wouldn't buy headphones or amps that presented lousy engineering better, I'd probably just edit it in a sound program and bounce out a version with a band aid on it.


----------



## SilverEars

Check this out!  Clie measured the X5 DAP EQ output.  I'm curious how the output looks with EQ on other hardware.
  


clieos said:


> First, it might worth point out that the EQ system on X5 is entirely software based and dynamic in nature. The level of boosting is calculated in real time based on the relative voltage of other frequency and therefore it is not a straight line like a hardware boost.
> 
> Anyway, here is what EQ on X5 looks like:
> 
> ...


 


clieos said:


> As promised, here is EQ off vs. EQ 0dB @ Custom.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

I remember reading something with a few daps and EQ(sorry I don't know where it was) there was an old ipod, default foobar EQ and something else I think. the result was that foobar default EQ really deserved to be upgraded with something better. I would suggest xnor's EQ or other parametric VSTs.
 and the ipod was making some kind of smoothed staircases.
  
 anyway most EQ on DAP aren't great and have limited and lousy amplitude settings. my sony's lowest slider is at 400hz and is limited to +3/-3 db...
 good luck with that when your IEM has too much bass :'( 
 when I had only one IEM, I used to rip to mp3 with an EQ so that I could have the sound I wanted on a DAP. to me it sounded clearly better than using the DAP's EQ.
 but on the sansa clip the EQ possibilities are really really cool and work nicely. I couldn't say if it's really smooth and at the precise values I set, but it's certainly the only DAP where I can get what I want as long as I spend some time on it.


----------



## SilverEars

I'm thinking the X5 just has poor EQ implementation?  Cowon P1's EQ was measured that I posted awhile back.
  

  
  
 I'd like to see some EQ measurements out of the computer to see how accurately they are done.


----------



## bigshot

I'm doing a little bit of A/B comparison of various masterings (std CD, HD, SACD, DVD-A, audiophile LP) and I am finding massive differences. For instance, the various versions of Talking Heads' "The Great Curve" from Remain in Light not only are mixed completely differently, one of them is playing back at a significantly different speed. And Led Zeppelin 1 seems to sound totally different every time they release it. No wonder people think high bit rates sound different. The *music* is VERY different. If I get a chance, I'll do some short clip samples to post.


----------



## GrindingThud

Totally agree! I usually do a scan over at http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/talking-heads-do-i-need-upgrading.78834/ or http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/your-favorite-version-of-pink-floyd-wish-you-were-here-on-cd.265127/ (for example) prior to buying a new CD to get an idea of what the different masters sound like. Some are hideously awful like the EMI remasters of Duran Duran where fans actually claimed the CDs were defective. Moody Blues has various clicks and pops on certain masters and not others. And of course there is the mountain of Pink Floyd masters with varying cult followings. Some masters even have different track lengths, no gaps, etc. Understanding the exact master, who did it and when, is critical to understanding quality. It's horribly confusing for those that care. Also beware some older CDs have pre-emphasis set...that is a pain to undo cleanly....itunes does an ok job as does the right filter for foobar....both do a digital filter and it is not the same as the original going through a CD player with the hardware.



bigshot said:


> I'm doing a little bit of A/B comparison of various masterings (std CD, HD, SACD, DVD-A, audiophile LP) and I am finding massive differences. For instance, the various versions of Talking Heads' "The Great Curve" from Remain in Light not only are mixed completely differently, one of them is playing back at a significantly different speed. And Led Zeppelin 1 seems to sound totally different every time they release it. No wonder people think high bit rates sound different. The *music* is VERY different. If I get a chance, I'll do some short clip samples to post.


----------



## swspiers

bigshot said:


> I'm doing a little bit of A/B comparison of various masterings (std CD, HD, SACD, DVD-A, audiophile LP) and I am finding massive differences. For instance, the various versions of Talking Heads' "The Great Curve" from Remain in Light not only are mixed completely differently, one of them is playing back at a significantly different speed. And Led Zeppelin 1 seems to sound totally different every time they release it. No wonder people think high bit rates sound different. The *music* is VERY different. If I get a chance, I'll do some short clip samples to post.


 
And surely the difference in quality will not only be attributed to the resolution but the choice of cable/interconnect/DAC/amp, etc.  Oh, and the latest pad modification as well...


----------



## anetode

The sad thing is that some of these "audiophile" remasters sound worse than the originals due to tape decay in the interstitial period. So you might end up with less dynamic compression and superior dynamics, but also more hiss and a smeared sound.
  
 Also sad is that if you want an uncompressed master of a recording from the past 15 years then sometimes your only hope is to pony up the extra dough for the SACD or other such format.


----------



## Rajikaru

bigshot said:


> Just get one really good pair of headphones and an equalizer and you can have any of them you want.


 
  
 I came across this article and thought it might be relevant to the EQ discussion: 
  
 Perceiving and Measuring Headphone Sound Quality (2014 Loudspeaker Industry Sourcebook)
http://read.uberflip.com/i/324330/22
  
 The article mostly distills everything down to frequency response. I question whether a headphone's sound signature is all just frequency response though, in which case an equalizer adjustment can make a really good linear headphone sound like anything else. I would think the size, type, and quality of the driver, as well as the resonances in the cups and pads, and other headphone design elements would have as much to do with it. 
  
 This got me thinking, because one headphone + EQ is an elegant concept. However, with the current equalizer I have on hand (DAP X5 EQ and Foobar), it is practically impossible to make the headphones I have sound similar. (At least for me. I spent the last hour 'playing' with the idea.)
  
 Much of this comes down to (using the above article's terminology): perceived spectral balance (by ear) vs. actual measured response. I suppose finding ideal EQ setting to get one headphone as close to the other as possible  would be easier if I had a G.R.A.S. ear simulator.
  
 Frankly, I'd rather just listen to music and switch headphones when I feel like it. I like the _wabi-sabi_  quality of using headphones either without EQ or just using EQ as corrective adjustments for certain tracks.


----------



## bigshot

I'm figuring some stuff out... The HD tracks that sound different/better than the CD generally have been completely remixed. Talking Heads' "Remain In Light" isn't the same mix at all. Some, like David Bowie's "Let's Dance" sounds great on my CD and sounds the same on SACD. Led Zeppelin seems to have a gazillion different flavors. I sampled the original LPs, HD tracks, the old CD, the remastered CD and the new remasters. Every one had different dynamics (most of them muddy and flat). I lost track of which was which, but there is one release that is significantly louder and punchier but the stereo spread was different than the original. I think it is the newest remaster, but I'm not sure. A couple of the LP versions sounded awful (Mothership in particular). What a mess. I give up. This is way too much work.


----------



## bigshot

OH MAN! I just realized something else doing direct comparisons... Originally, the Rolling Stones best ofs "Hot Rocks" were the SINGLE VERSIONS.... Different mix. In your face for 45s. Now that they have remixed the Rolling Stones albums for SACD, they cut the ALBUM VERSIONS into Hot Rocks. There is absolutely no reason to buy the album any more. It's just an ordinary greatest hits collection now.
  
 But the SACD version of the song "Avalon" on the album "Avalon" sounds much better than the same song on the Roxy Music best of SACD. An ordinary greatest hits collection is now an inferior one.
  
 I can see why the SACD format failed. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether something sounds better or worse without buying it. And it is a lot of work to rack up the various versions and compare them. I can totally sympathize with the person who just buys the cheapest version, and folks who worship at the altar of high bitrates aren't getting what they are paying for.


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> I'm doing a little bit of A/B comparison of various masterings (std CD, HD, SACD, DVD-A, audiophile LP) and I am finding massive differences. For instance, the various versions of Talking Heads' "The Great Curve" from Remain in Light not only are mixed completely differently, one of them is playing back at a significantly different speed. And *Led Zeppelin 1* seems to sound totally different every time they release it. No wonder people think high bit rates sound different. The *music* is VERY different. If I get a chance,* I'll do some short clip samples to post*.




Please do. Looking forward to it!

Cheers


----------



## bigshot

I'm afraid I got frustrated and gave up. Too many different formats and too many different mixes to be able to make any kind of general statement about which format has the best sound.
  
 I found out what I was trying to find out... I wanted to know if HD or SACD versions consistently had better mastering than CDs. The answer is sometimes yes, but not often.
  
 It's easier to predict sound quality based on the artist than the format. Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin are remixed totally different than the way they originally sounded. Whether or not any of the mixes sound *better* or not, I don't know. They just sound *different*. (I really didn't really care for the sound of any of the remixes all that much.) Most of the stuff I looked at sounds very close to my old 24 bit remastered CDs... David Bowie, Steely Dan, Dire Straits... No reason at all to buy the HD or SACD version of those. They already sound as good as they are going to sound on CD. In some cases, the sound of the SACD was clearly worse... My Roxy Music CD of Avalon sounds better than the same track on the SACD best of. The only high bit rate ones that were significantly better sounding than my CDs were Elton John and Talking Heads, but they may have been released in a newer version on CD using this same remastering since I got my CDs. (My copies of their CDs are very old.)
  
 I see absolutely no reason for high bit rate music to exist. The format isn't higher quality to human ears and the mastering isn't even necessarily better. I'm not going to bother with them any more because they are more trouble than they're worth.
  
 Next I am going to check out multichannel. I got a DVD-A of Elton John, bl-ray audio of Led Zeppelin's Celebration Day and a stack of Pentatone SACDs. I'll see how that stuff sounds.


----------



## swspiers

bigshot said:


> I'm afraid I got frustrated and gave up. Too many different formats and too many different mixes to be able to make any kind of general statement about which format has the best sound.
> 
> I found out what I was trying to find out... I wanted to know if HD or SACD versions consistently had better mastering than CDs. The answer is sometimes yes, but not often.


 
 Wow, thanks for taking one for the team- I feel your pain!
  
 You have touched upon an essential truth that most audio enthusiasts fail to grap: the technology, while cool for its own sake, is utlimately at the mercy of the mastering of any given recording.
  
 It's something so true, one can barely say it...


----------



## bigshot

My new Oppo player is arriving today, and I've assembled a little pile of surround sound disks to try in it. (My current SACD player will only connect to my amp as 2 channel.) But I am already smelling trouble.
  
 By far, the most prolific label for multichannel sound is PentaTone. I got a 11 disk sampler box set and a couple of Wagner operas to try out. But now I am reading the liner notes, and I find out PentaTone doesn't record in 5:1. They record in 5:0- no sub channel. The notes say that it is very difficult to adjust the crossover between the mains and subs in 5:1 systems, and movies use it primarily for low frequency effects, so they have eliminated that channel.
  
 WAIT A MINUTE! I have a 5:1 system with a very carefully calibrated crossover between the mains and sub. I did that by EQing the mains to eliminate frequencies below 80Hz and EQing the sub so it doesn't produce anything above 80Hz. If they eliminate the sub channel, I get *nothing* below 80Hz. THEY WANT ME TO COMPLETELY RE-EQ MY MAINS TO SUIT THEIR NON-STANDARD MULTICHANNEL FORMAT. Yeah, sure... I'm going to revamp all my settings to suit 5:0 just for one record label... Don't hold your breath!
  
 I'm so mad right now I could spit. I spent over $125 on NON-STANDARD multi-channel recordings. I suspect that the only way I am going to get any decent sub bass playing these is to run it through my stereo to multichannel DSP. And I have no idea how that will react to a 5:0 input instead of a 2:0. I have a feeling that I am going to be right back to 2 channel SACD again.
  
 I hope the Blu-Ray-Audio and DVD-Audio disks I ordered work properly. I'd kind of like to hear what really good multichannel music recordings sound like.


----------



## cjl

Can you set your receiver to simply route all <80Hz content from the main channels to the sub? I know that's achieved on my Denon receiver by setting the speaker size to "small", and then you can fiddle with the crossover frequency if you want (I usually run a 60Hz crossover on mine). I'd imagine your receiver would have a similar capability.


----------



## bigshot

I'll try that. I had manually adjusted the crossover using EQ. I probably am opening up a can of worms with this, but I'll try!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I say use a computer as the brains of your home AV system and build your software crossover and EQ system on the computer 

It can do so much more than crossover and EQ too


----------



## bigshot

The EQ has to be in the amp, I'm afraid. Otherwise the computer would be EQed and the blu-ray player wouldn't. I'd prefer a better equalizer, but I would need to get an outboard one, and that is too much money and trouble right now.
  
 I got my new blu-ray player into my system last night, and changed the speaker settings in the amp. I think it is going to add bass management to the 5:0 recordings, but it totally reset the crossover between the mains and sub. I have to start over on that. I got it roughed in last night, but it's going to take a week or so to fine tune. The big bump right at the crossover point is back again, but now it appears to be at a slightly higher frequency.


----------



## ferday

bigshot said:


> The EQ has to be in the amp, I'm afraid. Otherwise the computer would be EQed and the blu-ray player wouldn't. I'd prefer a better equalizer, but I would need to get an outboard one, and that is too much money and trouble right now.
> 
> I got my new blu-ray player into my system last night, and changed the speaker settings in the amp. I think it is going to add bass management to the 5:0 recordings, but it totally reset the crossover between the mains and sub. I have to start over on that. I got it roughed in last night, but it's going to take a week or so to fine tune. The big bump right at the crossover point is back again, but now it appears to be at a slightly higher frequency.


 
  
 there was a time when i hand built all my x-overs....those days are all but done now thanks to excellent EQ/room correction/convolution software.  i can now do in minutes what used to take hours of research and soldering to do.  i got around the blu-ray player etc. issues by building an HTPC....i've never been happier about how much flexibility there is in such a system, although it has required learning a lot of new and often complex software LOL


----------



## bigshot

I don't think I could make my media server do everything my Oppo blu-ray player does. It's a swiss army knife... It plays all kinds of disks (CD, DVD, BD, SACD, DVD-A, BD-A) all kinds of file formats (MKV, MP4) and is completely region free, so I can play DVDs and Blu-Rays from anywhere in the world with no region blocking issues. I think it would be difficult to get a PC to do everything my Roku box does too... especially its totally intuitive interface.
  
 My media server is great, but I haven't gone entirely with files for video like I have for music (yet).


----------



## swspiers

bigshot said:


> The EQ has to be in the amp, I'm afraid. Otherwise the computer would be EQed and the blu-ray player wouldn't. I'd prefer a better equalizer, but I would need to get an outboard one, and that is too much money and trouble right now.
> 
> I got my new blu-ray player into my system last night, and changed the speaker settings in the amp. I think it is going to add bass management to the 5:0 recordings, but it totally reset the crossover between the mains and sub. I have to start over on that. I got it roughed in last night, but it's going to take a week or so to fine tune. The big bump right at the crossover point is back again, but now it appears to be at a slightly higher frequency.


 
 I do the inverse of this: Jriver from my laptop, HDMI to my Oppo BDP-103, analog out to my headamp , downmixing 5.1 or 2.1 to my stereo.  Jriver EQ functions just fine through the Oppo.  The Oppo can do some processing for you, set the crossover and you should be good to go into a 2.1 configuration.
  
 And yes, the Oppo (with Roku stick) streams video better than my laptop, ditto with music from Sonos.  But if I had to, I could use the laptop on its own through the Oppo.  I'm just glad I don't have to...


----------



## bigshot

Doing it that way means anything played on your Oppo doesn't get EQed, doesn't it? My EQ settings are correcting for my speakers. I want it applied to all my sources the same.


----------



## swspiers

bigshot said:


> Doing it that way means anything played on your Oppo doesn't get EQed, doesn't it? My EQ settings are correcting for my speakers. I want it applied to all my sources the same.


 
 True.  Just one of a few work-arounds for funky 5.0 recordings.  But yeah- I understand the importance of EQ, especially your desire for audible flatness.  But occassionally, just occassionally, compromise is required.
  
 Plus, I suspect you might dig the parametric EQ in something like JRiver.  Multiple bands, crossovers, total control over Q.  It's pretty amazing and powerful.  I use it strictly for headphone listening, although lately I am enjoying the signature of headphones without EQ.  My pre-amp handles my main system EQ, and that is something I don't care to mess with.
  
 By the way, I spent like 5 minutes in the DAC/chocolate ice cream thread. I am so glad this part of Head-fi exists.  I think I've done a poor job of expressing my thanks.
  
 So to all of you: thanks!


----------



## ph0rk

bigshot said:


> I'm doing a little bit of A/B comparison of various masterings (std CD, HD, SACD, DVD-A, audiophile LP) and I am finding massive differences. For instance, the various versions of Talking Heads' "The Great Curve" from Remain in Light not only are mixed completely differently, one of them is playing back at a significantly different speed. And Led Zeppelin 1 seems to sound totally different every time they release it. No wonder people think high bit rates sound different. The *music* is VERY different. If I get a chance, I'll do some short clip samples to post.


 
 I've noticed this a few times before, and I've even hunted for "warmer" versions of some albums (Dead Kennedys - Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables; Killing Joke - Night Time, Fire Dances. Jaz Coleman will even admit that they were doing too much coke back then and mixes were too trebly) and in one rare case, a brighter encoding - (Killing Joke - Hosannas From the Basements of Hell).
  
 Of course, with gimmicky formats like SACD, they can really go overboard (Nine Inch Nails - The Downward Spiral) - the SACD version sounds like an _entirely_ new album, even with a completely different bass sound on one track.
  
 I feel like much of the idea that "digital is cold" came from some terrible early masters for CD, and invariably every encoding of an LP I've ever heard is fatter down low and rolled off up top. Maybe the ADCs they use aren't up to the job, or their turntables suck, but I doubt that is true in all cases. Hell, some of these were from the oink.me.uk days, and that stuff was all quality.


----------



## bigshot

OH MAN! I'VE FINALLY FOUND WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR!
  
 I spent the evening fixing the crossover between my sub and mains. And then I put on a DVD-A of Elton John's Goodbye Yellow Brick Road that I got on eBay. HOLY CRAP! I'm not a huge fan of Elton John. He's OK. But the engineering and the multichannel mix on this is superb. It maintains the spirit of the original album's mixes while throwing the sound around the room INTELLIGENTLY. The piano is focused up front. Elton's vocals and the primary guitar solos come through the center channel. The rears are accents and phase stuff. I couldn't ask for a better demonstration disk for 5:1. It also makes me happy because as stuff moved from speaker to speaker, it maintained the same level and EQ. It shows I did my job with tweaking. I'm going to get the rest of his surround mixed albums now. I wish there was more stuff like this.
  
 I have Steely Dan's Gaucho on the way. I have high hopes for that. I wish they had a multichannel mix of Fagan's Nightfly album.


----------



## anetode

bigshot said:


> I have Steely Dan's Gaucho on the way. I have high hopes for that. I wish they had a multichannel mix of Fagan's Nightfly album.


 
  
http://www.dvd-a.net/nightfly.html - Limited release, so I doubt you could find it used, but the rip is floating around online.


----------



## davidsh

Shouldnt you get the realizer now you are at it?


----------



## bigshot

I would but it's too much money.
  
 By the way, I found a copy of Nightfly in Japan. Ordered.


----------



## davidsh

bigshot said:


> I would but it's too much money.
> 
> By the way, I found a copy of Nightfly in Japan. Ordered.


 
 Yeah, well, there's that detail. If I had better access to hi-end speaker systems, I'd seriously consider it.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Well, looks like I'll be putting my money where my mouth is, and moving my main speaker system from my computer to the living room... with a new computer in tow.  Will have to spend days replacing furniture and throwing out stuff but I'm determined


----------



## Grave

Everything that does exist does not exist and everything that does not exist does exist according to audiophiles. The result is nothing but low fidelity. It's just sad.
 
/rant


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Where were you just now that ticked you off so? I could use a laugh


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Have you mixed up your amp and headphone distortion figures by any chance? Sure, low distortion figures may be audible but it's not like the Alpha Dogs are doing much worse than, say, the Hifiman HE-5 or, say, the Beyerdynamic DT880 I'm listening to right now. Heck, the DT880 supposedly have 10% distortion in the bass but I'm not really hearing it even in pure sine tones... and bass is where distortion is supposedly most audible.


----------



## davidsh

Now, don't come tell me transducers sound the same


----------



## mikeaj

joe bloggs said:


> Have you mixed up your amp and headphone distortion figures by any chance? Sure, low distortion figures may be audible but it's not like the Alpha Dogs are doing much worse than, say, the Hifiman HE-5 or, say, the Beyerdynamic DT880 I'm listening to right now. Heck, the DT880 supposedly have 10% distortion in the bass but I'm not really hearing it even in pure sine tones... *and bass is where distortion is supposedly most audible.*



 
(emphasis added)

Who says that? I thought it was well known that bass distortion has to be a lot higher to be audible.


----------



## SilverEars

That's what I was thinking too.  I would think treble would be much more noticeable than bass especially under 100Hz.  You see high bass distortions on dynamics with 100Hz resonance all the time.


----------



## Grave

THD is THD.
  
 The *mid range* is in fact where distortion is the most audible.
  
 Any distortion in the mid range exceeding 0.01% is in fact audible and this proves that transducers sound *different.*
  
 Listen to the LCD-2's and you will hear what minimal distortion in the bass sounds like.


----------



## bigshot

You've misplaced a decimal point there. The threshold of audibility is 1%, not .01%.


----------



## SilverEars

grave said:


> The *mid range* is in fact where distortion is the most audible.


 
 Can you explain why the midrange?  Why not treble?  I was thinking the lower treble region being the most audible.  5-10k


----------



## bigshot

Upper mids/low high... 1-4kHz.


----------



## davidsh

silverears said:


> grave said:
> 
> 
> > The *mid range* is in fact where distortion is the most audible.
> ...



Because our ears are tuned to be most sensitive around 1-3 kHz. That is the short answer.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *Grave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Any distortion in the mid range exceeding 0.01% is in fact audible and this proves that transducers sound *different.*


 
  
 It would be more accurate to say "some" distortion is audible, as I think it would not be too hard to create samples where 0.02% distortion is inaudible in blind testing.
  
 The most audible difference between transducers is the frequency response, as even high end models are not close to be flat enough for audible transparency. But high distortion on loud bass is also common for dynamic headphones and speakers.


----------



## stv014

davidsh said:


> Because our ears are tuned to be most sensitive around 1-3 kHz. That is the short answer.


 
  
 Although it is actually the frequency of the distortion products that matters here, rather than that of the fundamental. For example, 5th order harmonic distortion of a 600 Hz tone, or 2nd order IMD between 15 and 18 kHz tones would both produce distortion at 3 kHz.


----------



## bigshot

stv014 said:


> It would be more accurate to say "some" distortion is audible, as I think it would not be too hard to create samples where 0.02% distortion is inaudible in blind testing.


 
  
 .02% is below -70dB. I seriously doubt that any human being would ever be able to discern that under music. Ethan Winer in his Audio Myths seminar takes the absolute worst kind of noise and takes it down under music a little bit at a time. At the point the noise reaches -40dB or so... which is 1%... it starts to become impossible to hear.
  
 If you are interested in finding out how the numbers being quoted actually relate to what your ears can hear, I recommend his two videos at youtube. He does several tests that are eye opening (and ear opening too!)
  
AES Audio Myths Seminar: http://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
AES Damn Lies Seminar: http://youtu.be/Zvireu2SGZM


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> stv014 said:
> 
> 
> > It would be more accurate to say "some" distortion is audible, as I think it would not be too hard to create samples where 0.02% distortion is inaudible in blind testing.
> ...


 

 it's hard to give a general value I think. first because as mentioned, there is distortion, and distortion. but also because some headphones have distortions going up with loudness, and others where it's the opposite. so 2 headphones with the same distortion readings at 90db might not have the same at all on the quiet part of a song.
 now I know that 1% is the generally accepted lvl for headphones, but I did tend to dislike most headphones with 1% disto in the medium frequencies. before knowing about the measurements for most, but I'll admit that I might have been biased for a few others where I already knew about the distortion measurements and might have pre-disliked the headphone for it. still I think 0.5% would be a more realistic value to stop worrying. and about bass distortion, not only it doesn't bother me, I actually seem to enjoy it a lot on some headphones where it rises very high in bass and sub bass. so there is definitely hearing distortion, and being bothered by it, just like with tube amps.


----------



## bigshot

Harmonic distortion follows the dynamics of the music by definition, doesn't it? If it is constant through silent parts it would be considered noise. Citing the Ethan Winer noise test I linked to above... If constant noise becomes extremely difficult to hear below -40dB except in complete silence, I would expect that harmonic distortion following the dynamics of the music would be even more difficult to hear, no matter what kind of sound the distortion is.
  
 I think the generally accepted "acceptable levels" of THD you see quoted in audiophile forums have had the worst case of worst case scenarios applied, and then bumped down a few notches more "just to be safe" several times. ("OH! If this guy says .05% is good, I WANT .01% just to be safe!")
  
 I honestly can't see anyone needing averaged THD ratings below 1% unless they are in a studio situation and are going to do a lot of processing of the signal. Decent amps and CD players are so far below that now, it doesn't really matter anymore. And speakers can have distortion levels of 3 or 4% THD and still sound darn good. Distortion just isn't generally an issue, except with really cheap transducers.


----------



## Strangelove424

These studies (at the bottom) have it cited pretty high, mostly above 1%. http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/human-hearing-distortion-audibility-part-3
  
 Do you guys know if harmonic distortion sounds the same on each play through? Or is there enough variation in it to trigger a slight difference between two playbacks? (trying to track down the source of noise/distortion in difference files I'm making in the cable thread)


----------



## swspiers

bigshot said:


> I think the generally accepted "acceptable levels" of THD you see quoted in audiophile forums have had the worst case of worst case scenarios applied, and then bumped down a few notches more "just to be safe" several times. ("OH! If this guy says .05% is good, I WANT .01% just to be safe!")
> 
> I honestly can't see anyone needing averaged THD ratings below 1% unless they are in a studio situation and are going to do a lot of processing of the signal. Decent amps and CD players are so far below that now, it doesn't really matter anymore. And speakers can have distortion levels of 3 or 4% THD and still sound darn good. Distortion just isn't generally an issue, except with really cheap transducers.


 
 It's easy to buy into this.  Heck, I did it for over twenty years, and I have certification in studio engineering (albeit from 1984.)
  
 It's one of the insidious aspects of the subjective mindset- there are numbers attached, so it must be scientific.  It takes discipline and intent to even begin to wonder if the numbers are meaningful in any way


----------



## bigshot

strangelove424 said:


> Do you guys know if harmonic distortion sounds the same on each play through? Or is there enough variation in it to trigger a slight difference between two playbacks? (trying to track down the source of noise/distortion in difference files I'm making in the cable thread)


 
  
 Should be the same unless it is the result of something heating up and acting differently hot than cold.
  
 What kind of amount of distortion are you finding? Are you doing any processing of the files?


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> Should be the same unless it is the result of something heating up and acting differently hot than cold.
> 
> What kind of amount of distortion are you finding? Are you doing any processing of the files?


 
 Yeah, I had to downsample from 88.2 to 44.1 to use in DiffMaker, and then DiffMaker automates level normalization, waveform matching, and number of other parameters to extract the A-B. 
  
 esldude had this to say: "In any case, been thinking on it more and can tell you why you  hear remnants of the music if you amp it up by 50 db or more.  When you normalize files that are identical other than some noise, the noise causes the normalizing process to get the signal portion lower in the noisier file.  What this means when you difference them is instead of getting only noise and none of the original signal, you get some noise and a very low level residual of the original signal which if amped enough you hear."
  
 I originally was thinking it might have been caused upstream of the cable, like if the reviewer's amp was distorting the source file (it was a very badly compressed sample) then that might pop up in all the samples. But if esldude is right, it's just a byproduct of the differencing process. Regardless, the noise differences were so slight between the cables and so far below the audible noise floor that for all practical purposes there was no difference.


----------



## bigshot

Today, I got a Spears and Munsill calibration disk from Amazon Prime and sat down to do to my projector and blu-ray player what I've done with my sound system. Amazingly enough, my eyeballed settings were VERY close to calibrated standard. The only thing I was off on was sharpness. (I need glasses!) The brightness, contrast and color all ended up in the same spot that I had them in. It's interesting to try out a systematic calibration on something other than audio. This disk is very well organized and made the process very easy. It has audio calibration tools too. I'm going to look those over, but I am too satisfied with my current settings to mess with them.


----------



## Grave

There is an obvious difference between headphones with 1% distortion and 0.1% distortion. That's like the difference between what audiophiles call "low-fi" and hi-fi" right there.


----------



## swspiers

Biggie: What TV do you have?


----------



## swspiers

grave said:


> There is an obvious difference between headphones with 1% distortion and 0.1% distortion. That's like the difference between what audiophiles call "low-fi" and hi-fi" right there.




Agreed. That decimal point is right there, sure enough!


----------



## Grave

If you think all headphones sound the same in terms of distortion that is just sad.


----------



## castleofargh

grave said:


> If you think all headphones sound the same in terms of distortion that is just sad.


 

 if you put it on a scale of signal variation instead of what's nice or not, audible or not. then 1%distortion is nothing compared to a +1DB boost in FR somewhere.
 -1db would be what a 90% variation? ^_^
 that's why I clearly understand people who care mostly about FR and only check that the rest is below audible/disturbing level.
 to me the main differences, between headphones come from the driver tech, if it's closed or opened, often I seem to favor larger drivers but I can't really say what impact that has on sound so let's dismiss it here. and really what it comes down to for me is when it rolls off and how fast? just like speakers. for IEMs I'm resigned to have a crappy frequency range, but for fullsize headphones I really do care mostly about FR and roll off. and roll off could really be counted as FR so here you have it, I care really just for FR ^_^.
  
  


bigshot said:


> Harmonic distortion follows the dynamics of the music by definition, doesn't it? If it is constant through silent parts it would be considered noise. Citing the Ethan Winer noise test I linked to above... If constant noise becomes extremely difficult to hear below -40dB except in complete silence, I would expect that harmonic distortion following the dynamics of the music would be even more difficult to hear, no matter what kind of sound the distortion is.


 
  I understand what you mean, if the distortion creates a signal at some frequency -40below the original signal you expect a proportional response with music.
 but look at Tyll's measurements and how much the distortions values can change from a test signal at 90db to a test signal at 100db.
  I take what I often see with ortho, that getting louder seems to make the distortions go down. if I get 0.3% at Xkhz at 90db from a headphone, then what lvl of distortion am I to expect from a music signal at 40db on a quiet part of a song(quiet not silent)?
 that was the meaning of my post, is the harmonic distortion created still close to 0.3% of the original signal? so 50db under the original 40db loud music(we can as well say nonexistent)? or does the distortion grow massive in proportion to the original signal?
 if the distortion values can go from 0.1 to 0.5 from a 10db variation in the test signal, I'm really curious to know what can result of something 40 or 50db lower. (the fun part is that if the distortions values are massive, it makes the high res fans and their "96db of dynamic isn't enough", even less credible ^_^).
  
 here is a random example of what I mean http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2sn53211704circa2012.pdf
  plz someone call the Tyll police so that he can come save me, and tell us what we should expect from a signal at 50 or 60DB instead of the usual 90 and 100db distortion readings. and if distortion stays proportional or if the driver control can sometimes just crumble under and below some values?


----------



## bigshot

swspiers said:


> Biggie: What TV do you have?


 

 I have a Epson 7500 UB with a ten foot screen.


----------



## bigshot

grave said:


> If you think all headphones sound the same in terms of distortion that is just sad.


 

 The ones over 1% THD I would check out before buying. They might not be good. But response is generally much more of an issue than distortion.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> but look at Tyll's measurements and how much the distortions values can change from a test signal at 90db to a test signal at 100db.


 
  
 100dB is very loud.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *castleofargh* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> but look at Tyll's measurements and how much the distortions values can change from a test signal at 90db to a test signal at 100db.
> I take what I often see with ortho, that getting louder seems to make the distortions go down. if I get 0.3% at Xkhz at 90db from a headphone, then what lvl of distortion am I to expect from a music signal at 40db on a quiet part of a song(quiet not silent)?


 
  
 If you see the distortion decreasing at higher SPL on the InnerFidelity graphs, it is often because most of the "distortion" at the lower level is in fact noise. The measurements show THD+N, rather than THD, and they include all microphone and ambient noise in the audio band with no weighting. Especially when the 100 dB SPL distortion is about 3 times (+10 dB = ~3.16x gain) lower than the 90 dB one, and the latter looks noisy/"fuzzy" on the graph, the THD+N is likely to be more noise than distortion. It is also unnatural for low (mostly 2nd) order distortion to increase at low levels, such effect is typically seen with crossover or quantization distortion, which produce high order harmonics.
  
 It would be useful if InnerFidelity has shown THD vs. frequency instead of, or in addition to THD+N, and the actual distortion spectra (FFT) at one or more combinations of frequency and SPL.


----------



## castleofargh

stv014 said:


> > Originally Posted by *castleofargh* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > but look at Tyll's measurements and how much the distortions values can change from a test signal at 90db to a test signal at 100db.
> > I take what I often see with ortho, that getting louder seems to make the distortions go down. if I get 0.3% at Xkhz at 90db from a headphone, then what lvl of distortion am I to expect from a music signal at 40db on a quiet part of a song(quiet not silent)?
> ...


 

 I thought about noise, but you come across both situations, distortion values getting lower with increased SPL, and for other headphones the opposite.
 I seemed to notice that the ones getting lower with SPL are often orthos. but even that might just be me trying to explain something with the wrong anecdotal observations?


----------



## stv014

castleofargh said:


> I thought about noise, but you come across both situations, distortion values getting lower with increased SPL, and for other headphones the opposite.
> I seemed to notice that the ones getting lower with SPL are often orthos. but even that might just be me trying to explain something with the wrong anecdotal observations?


 
  
 I guess high end orthodynamic and electrostatic headphones have fairly low distortion, and are thus more likely to produce a noise dominated THD+N measurement. When higher distortion is shown at 100 dB SPL, and at least the higher level trace is a smooth (not noisy) line, then it is probably really distortion. Ambient noise (e.g. traffic on the street) could vary over time, and headphones have different levels of isolation, which adds some variation to the measurements. I guess low frequency noise is particularly hard to isolate, that is why I noted the fact that THD+N is normally unweighted.
  
 Another, unrelated issue to consider when reading the distortion graphs is that they show a THD percentage, and are thus affected by the non-flat frequency response. For example, if there is a narrow but deep notch at some frequency, it will appear as a large distortion spike, because the fundamental is attenuated, but the noise and harmonics (if they are produced by the driver, while the notch is an acoustic effect of the enclosure) are not. On the other hand, peaks on the frequency response can also increase the distortion due to the higher SPL.


----------



## Grave

bigshot said:


> You've misplaced a decimal point there. The threshold of audibility is 1%, not .01%.


 
 Nope.


----------



## GrindingThud

Source? Study's have shown it more like 2-4% with music material and .7+/- with pure tones.
http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/human-hearing-distortion-audibility-part-3
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2476




grave said:


> Nope.


----------



## castleofargh

stv014 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > I thought about noise, but you come across both situations, distortion values getting lower with increased SPL, and for other headphones the opposite.
> ...


 

 so for you seeing the distortion going down from 90 to 100db test signal could be seen as a cue that distortion values are really low(and we're really looking at noise), and not that they actually behave better louder?
 because I did find that some electrostats needed a certain volume to sound great. it's a totally subjective feeling, I realize that, but being usually the kind to turn down the volume on anything people pass to me, I kind of though electrostats were simply losing it with lower voltages. if such a thing actually exists.
 anyway thank you for answering, I don't really know where to learn about this without going back to school and take audio engineering.


----------



## stv014

castleofargh said:


> so for you seeing the distortion going down from 90 to 100db test signal could be seen as a cue that distortion values are really low(and we're really looking at noise), and not that they actually behave better louder?


 
  
 Well, some of them might really have lower distortion at higher levels, it could only be found out for sure if InnerFidelity provided more information (i.e. THD (not +N) vs. frequency and/or FFT plots). But distortion that is higher percentage at low signal level (for example, crossover or quantization distortion) is usually "bad", because it does not benefit as much from masking (it is more like noise), and it tends to produce high order harmonics.
  


castleofargh said:


> because I did find that some electrostats needed a certain volume to sound great.


 
  
 Louder generally sounds better subjectively, at least within reasonable limits.


----------



## castleofargh

stv014 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > so for you seeing the distortion going down from 90 to 100db test signal could be seen as a cue that distortion values are really low(and we're really looking at noise), and not that they actually behave better louder?
> ...


 
  interresting, thanks.
  
  
 Quote:


stv014 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > because I did find that some electrostats needed a certain volume to sound great.
> ...


 
 sure but as I said I tend to listen very very quietly to music, I'm hyper-something or just find loud sounds annoying, I don't know. I stopped going to live performances because I get annoyed by the loudness and it ruins my experience. and my custom filters are "ok-ish" but it's just not the same and not really neutral either. also it seems to really mess with my sens of positioning ^_^ I'm almost better with real plugs. anyway, just to say that me thinking louder is better tends to go the other way around very fast outside of my quiet comfort zone.
 but maybe you're right and it's simply that the electrostats I've tried where a lot more flat in signature than other headphones, so that the overall loudness didn't have annoying pics? arrrrgh damn you subjectivity!


----------



## bigshot

I just rewired some stuff in my theater after getting a nice new blu-ray player and I realize that the way I wired it, I can't diddle with my equalization settings any more. The AV receiver doesn't show up on the screen any more. I guess that's OK. Most of the time my diddling is just to change things a dB or less. Not much point. It's good to let it ride now.
  
 The thing I really need to do is go around the room and put earthquake putty underneath all the knick knacks and take all the 78s out of the Victrola. Every time I put on a horror movie, the whole room rattles like a bull in a china shop.


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> I just rewired some stuff in my theater after getting a nice new blu-ray player and I realize that the way I wired it, I can't diddle with my equalization settings any more. The AV receiver doesn't show up on the screen any more. I guess that's OK. Most of the time my diddling is just to change things a dB or less. Not much point. It's good to let it ride now.


 
  
 Hm, that seems to happen to me to when using HDMI signal in from an HD source then out to the TV. I can't speak for all receivers but don't think mine can layer its text over HD or process the video signal at that resolution. The only time I see an on screen display is when the source HD is off (totally impractical, I know) and signal itself looks like 4:3 SD. Usually if I need to make db adjustments I use the little tiny window on the receiver and squint my way through it.   
  
 Edit: Actually, nevermind, I seem to be getting the OSD while my Blu Ray player is plugged in... I wonder when that started working. Honestly, these things are too complicated for me sometimes.
  


> The thing I really need to do is go around the room and put earthquake putty underneath all the knick knacks and take all the 78s out of the Victrola. Every time I put on a horror movie, the whole room rattles like a bull in a china shop.


 
  
 hehe, reminds me of the "you shall not pass!" scene from Lord of the Rings. Always feels like my floor is lifting up.


----------



## castleofargh

strangelove424 said:


> > The thing I really need to do is go around the room and put earthquake putty underneath all the knick knacks and take all the 78s out of the Victrola. Every time I put on a horror movie, the whole room rattles like a bull in a china shop.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 lol, I was wondering why the hell you had been impressed by the sound of that scene 
  
 ^_^ then I read again.


----------



## Strangelove424

LMAO. That scene in Holy Grail is classic, but when you juxtapose it against a typical movie scene like LoR, it becomes even funnier.


----------



## bigshot

Have you noticed the "name the amp" contest on the HeadFi home page. I want to name that amp, "Accident Waiting To Happen". Every time I see that picture, I imagine the log rolling over and smashing the little lighthouse decoration on top.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Have you noticed the "name the amp" contest on the HeadFi home page. I want to name that amp, "Accident Waiting To Happen". Every time I see that picture, I imagine the log rolling over and smashing the little lighthouse decoration on top.


 

 I know how I would decorate it if I get one:


----------



## SilverEars

castleofargh said:


> I know how I would decorate it if I get one:


 
 Would be useful to make it glow in sequence for the holidays.  But noooo, we can't have that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  You pay $5k for tube amp, and get tired of it after a week, you should be able to put it to decorative use atleast.
 .


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> Have you noticed the "name the amp" contest on the HeadFi home page. I want to name that amp, "Accident Waiting To Happen". Every time I see that picture, I imagine the log rolling over and smashing the little lighthouse decoration on top.


 
 It's designed that way for tube rolling.


----------



## Strangelove424

There's too much dynamic range in movies. They keep it quiet the whole time so they can blow you out of your chair when there's a gun fight. Horribly inefficient, and annoying. Tired of running to the remote. Digital formats only made this worse. It's ironic because I complain about the opposite thing in music, but they're both in the same camp as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## GrindingThud

D.COMP mode (night mode) compresses this quite a bit. I'm usually in night mode all the time. 



strangelove424 said:


> There's too much dynamic range in movies. They keep it quiet the whole time so they can blow you out of your chair when there's a gun fight. Horribly inefficient, and annoying. Tired of running to the remote. Digital formats only made this worse. It's ironic because I complain about the opposite thing in music, but they're both in the same camp as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Strangelove424

I use that a lot too, most of the time I'm watching movies. Just watching Tombstone and it got super loud in a gun fight. It surprised me because I was already in day mode. Stepped it down to night. I don't like keeping it on these dynamic volume settings though because I always forget when it comes time for music.


----------



## bigshot

strangelove424 said:


> There's too much dynamic range in movies. They keep it quiet the whole time so they can blow you out of your chair when there's a gun fight.


 
  
 I had that problem in my theater at first. But then I realized that my mains were MUCH more efficient and powerful than the wimpy center channel speaker I was using. I went out and got a center channel that was capable of getting good and loud and rebalanced the levels so the center was much louder and the mains much quieter. When I set the volume at a normal setting now, the dialogue is intelligible, and the loud effects aren't so loud they peel the plaster off the walls.


----------



## Strangelove424

This was a Netflix movie in stereo. I get lazy sometimes, and if I just wanna catch something quick will bounce the video/audio from computer to the receiver. I have a Playstation that does Netflix in surround, but don't always use it. 
  
 I know the issue your talking about though, I usually have my centers up 3-4db when using surround. My center channel was part of the same series of speakers, and actually has more efficiency than the mains, so I suspect at least some of this is due to mastering decisions. I've heard this complaint about dialogue levels from a lot of people, and noticed while watching some modern movies that the LFE and surround effects were more elevated than you'd find in old movies or ones with strong acting. If the actual scene content is lacking, or the acting unconvincing, sometimes they boost the effects levels to increase tension in the scene. Marlon Brando can carry a scene even amidst a dead quiet, but that talent doesn't seem to be there today. So failing emotional draw and genuine human interest, bring in the LFE! 
  
 Getting back to the center channel though, there might also be an issue with the dispersal pattern. A man who I respect greatly, Andrew Jones, the designer of my speakers who was kind enough to come in and talk to us at avsforums, said that he thought it was a shame centers had to be horizontally designed, but that was the requirement due to screen accommodation. He thought the dispersal pattern of horizontal speakers is horrible, and when someone in the forum stated that they intended to use two of his own center channels on their "sides" as stereo speakers, Andrew was excited about the idea and applauded it! So there is definitely some strong merit to the idea that dialogue deserves more than just a single horizontal speaker, heavily outweighed by the mains.


----------



## bigshot

The dispersal pattern also depends on the shape of the room. Acoustically, the worst shape for a room is a perfect cube. The second worst is a room that is wider than it is long. In a situation like that, with the mains spread too far apart, the center would certainly drop out. In that kind of room, it's better to keep the front three speakers closer together... like 4 feet between each of the mains and the center.
  
 I learned a lot of the basics of arranging a room by trial and error. I wish there were guidelines printed on the internet about this stuff. One of the interesting things I discovered about my room is that it has a big bass trap. It's longwise, but on one half of the rear wall, there is a bar that extends backwards. Off the bar behind the other half of the rear wall is a bathroom. In the far corner of the bathroom is a shower. When I turn on the stereo and get in the shower, the whole room acts like an exponential horn, channeling the bass directly into the shower. It's uncanny.
  
 Acoustics are foo. You can't fully figure them out. You can only play with them and figure out what sounds good.


----------



## Strangelove424

My room is almost exactly the same. It's rectangular, and has a huge bass trap in the bathroom, which is diagonal to the subwoofer. If you go in there, it feels like you're in a bass resonance chamber. I don't know, is that good or bad that it acts like a bass trap? I know rectangular rooms are not good in general, but like you said every room is different even depending on internal structure, there is no rhyme or reason to it. On the other side of the wall of my sub is a closet, so I often wonder what that does to the low frequencies. I also have bookshelves and my computer desk opposite the audio stuff, and I have heard that book shelves and other sorts of obstructing surfaces (the more varied the better) can act as good acoustic isolators. 
  
 The best person on this is Ethan Weiner, he knows a lot about it and has a range of products . The only problem is I cannot afford to really do his acoustic treatment the right way yet. But I am convinced that you cannot spend alot on audio, and expect and consistency with your results without acoustic treatment. You can take the measurements for the finest speaker, and throw them out if you are in an acoustically unfriendly room. A budget speaker with neutral response and low distortion, in a treated acoustic room, will be far more precise. 
  
 Given my slim budget, I've done what I can by suspending a couple soft blankets in front of the rear wall to tame reflections (that really annoyed me the most), and another soft blanket behind the speakers. The main floor standers themselves are raised on cinder blocks to bring the tweeter up a little higher. That was one sacrifice with their price, their short size, but the designer Andrew said it was no problem raising them. The benefit to cinder blocks as speaker stands is that they do not resonate low frequencies (or high ones for that matter) and are cheap for the purpose (99 cents I think I paid). The price for speaker stands is outrageous sometimes. If you really got ambitious, you could probably make your own from mixed cement. Anyhow... it's quite an interesting subject I think, just the way sound behaves in general. With blankets on the wall, people think I'm crazy when they first come in, but when I explain it, and then turn on the stereo system, they get the idea.


----------



## bigshot

Some fun being had with snake oil!
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/740293/synergistic-research-hot#post_11036526


----------



## dclaz

bigshot said:


> Some fun being had with snake oil!
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/740293/synergistic-research-hot#post_11036526


 
 That's hilarious


----------



## davidsh

Great read!


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> Some fun being had with snake oil!
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/740293/synergistic-research-hot#post_11036526


 
  
 Awesome tear-down, your buddy probably saved people a whole lot of money. Blows the mind how they could price it as high as a good pair of headphones.


----------



## bigshot

I'm probably going to be banned for doing everyone a favor. For some reason when you point out the emperor's nakedness, certain parties get mad.


----------



## castleofargh

well I was at least expecting a zobel network or something with tremendous capacitance. I mean at least something that might have an effect on sound, even a bad one.
  
 but if the point was to somehow make the cable vibrate, I think we can find more effective ways to do so for cheaper in a sex shop.


----------



## bigshot

I thought the point was to put cables on risers so they DON'T vibrate. I wish fraudsters would at least be consistent in their fraudulence.


----------



## Strangelove424

I thought the pebbles were there to absorb the escaping quantum ions.... Hard to keep all these misapplication of concepts straight in my head.


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> I'm probably going to be banned for doing everyone a favor. For some reason when you point out the emperor's nakedness, certain parties get mad.


 

 I too thought you did everyone a favor, possibly saving $300 being spent at least dozens of times (and you probably did we just might not hear about it).  My surprise is the number who saw the tear down and still want to believe.  It was funny the first time, but it continues including someone taking delivery and apparently not ready to simply send it right back in the 30 day window.  Wow. 
  
 And seeing the reaction by mods and such, you thought I was adding "in my opinion" unnecessarily.  If you can't mock this product, then obviously nothing can be mocked.


----------



## bigshot

The thing that amazes me is that audiophiles don't recognize a stock 1/4 inch jack and plug. They look at the pictures and can't figure out what it is. No wonder high end audio is so rife with fraud. A lot of potential victims of fraud can look straight at the guts of the thing and still not see it is snake oil. If it's that easy, you could sell ANYTHING to them with a few trumped up testimonials.
  
 All I can say is that I hope they are better at sorting out legal and medical advice than they are advice on stereos.


----------



## Roly1650

bigshot said:


> The thing that amazes me is that audiophiles don't recognize a stock 1/4 inch jack and plug. They look at the pictures and can't figure out what it is. No wonder high end audio is so rife with fraud. A lot of potential victims of fraud can look straight at the guts of the thing and still not see it is snake oil. If it's that easy, you could sell ANYTHING to them with a few trumped up testimonials.
> 
> All I can say is that I hope they are better at sorting out legal and medical advice than they are advice on stereos.



I find it rather sad that at least one poster and a moderator are that obtuse they think this thing may actually do something worthwhile. It's one thing to have no technical expertise, but quite another to continue to pontificate after having the evidence explained. And downright ignorant to label those with more than an ounce of common sense "conspiracy theorist" for not buying in and the same moderator apparently thinks this ignorance is ok.

Strange world were exposing snake oil and fraud is considered non pc.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bigshot said:


> The thing that amazes me is that audiophiles don't recognize a stock 1/4 inch jack and plug. They look at the pictures and can't figure out what it is. No wonder high end audio is so rife with fraud. A lot of potential victims of fraud can look straight at the guts of the thing and still not see it is snake oil. If it's that easy, you could sell ANYTHING to them with a few trumped up testimonials.
> 
> All I can say is that I hope they are better at sorting out legal and medical advice than they are advice on stereos.




TBH I haven't seen a 1/4 inch plug (the female end) myself and am having trouble finding stock images of it...


----------



## bigshot

joe bloggs said:


> TBH I haven't seen a 1/4 inch plug (the female end) myself and am having trouble finding stock images of it...


 

 If you own a radio shack headphone cable extender, it probably has screw off caps on the connectors. You can unscrew the housing and see what's inside. The one I have has a plastic covering around the jack the thickness of paper. The one in the teardown has a solid metal covering around it. But a jack's a jack. I'm sure it's made from stock connector parts and white plastic plumbing pipe.


----------



## bigshot

roly1650 said:


> I find it rather sad that at least one poster and a moderator are that obtuse they think this thing may actually do something worthwhile.


 
  
 I'm curious if the one poster is the owner of Synergistic Research. I asked him, but I haven't heard back yet.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Probably not, it is a complete waste of time to be on here making subjective impressions of your own products. I never heard of company owners posting their own subjective impressions. Maybe a rep or one with ties to the company.


----------



## bigshot

Back before Sound Science split off as its own group, there was heated debate in the Cables and Tweaks forum over claims made by a cable manufacturer (an advertiser on HeadFi). There was one poster who defended the cable company's claims over and over and over and vigorously denied the validity of scientific DB testing. He went all the way to the wall with it and had a melt down where he resorted to insulting personal attacks, resulting in being banned. A few days later, people discovered that he was a paid representative of the cable company. The ads for that company suddenly disappeared from HeadFi without comment, the thread was deleted and the announcement went out that Sound Science would be created, and would be the only place on HeadFi where DBT would be allowed to be discussed.
  
 Don't assume that companies don't employ shills. They do.


----------



## Muinarc

Audiophilia is a religion. They WANT to believe. Might as well let them, you've done your civic duty already, if they want to ignore it thats ok.... just as long as there are enough of us to refute future claims and post a link back to the science every time someone boasts about it.


----------



## Shike

Okay, which one of you guys is copycatting me at innerfidelity?  Pretty funny


----------



## bigshot

muinarc said:


> Audiophilia is a religion. They WANT to believe. Might as well let them, you've done your civic duty already, if they want to ignore it thats ok..


 
  
 Whenever I get into a discussion like this, I'm not speaking for the benefit of the person I am directly talking with. I am always talking past that person to the legions of lurkers and the folks who google things like "synergistic research hot". They're the ones that can benefit from my beating my head against the wall with people who don't want to understand.


----------



## bigshot

shike said:


> Okay, which one of you guys is copycatting me at innerfidelity?


 
  
 You're worth spoofing! Congrats!
  
 Honestly though... I don't care what the reputation of the board is one way or the other. I look at the value and integrity of the information being shared. I think people in the audiophile world are too hung up on finding an audiophile Moses who will lead them by the nose into the promised land. Instead they should be looking at the map and heading in that direction themselves.


----------



## Roly1650

bigshot said:


> I'm curious if the one poster is the owner of Synergistic Research. I asked him, but I haven't heard back yet.



I agree, something seems fishy, he seems to know a lot about release dates and shipping costs to the UK for someone apparently living in New Mexico. You think I give a rats about shipping cost to anyone other than me? The owner or a shill, maybe, but I do know his subjective impressions are ones I can safely ignore.


----------



## Shike

bigshot said:


> You're worth spoofing! Congrats!
> 
> Honestly though... I don't care what the reputation of the board is one way or the other. I look at the value and integrity of the information being shared. I think people in the audiophile world are too hung up on finding an audiophile Moses who will lead them by the nose into the promised land. Instead they should be looking at the map and heading in that direction themselves.


 
  
 Agreed - if only the map wasn't made by a three year old we could get there faster 
  
 Either way I've mostly found my ideals in this heathen technology called Ambiophonics outside headphone land so I haven't participated in headphone discussions much recently.


----------



## bigshot

roly1650 said:


> I agree, something seems fishy, he seems to know a lot about release dates and shipping costs to the UK for someone apparently living in New Mexico.


 
  
 He says he is coming to the HeadFi Southern California meet. I've invited him to drop by my house for a demo of my system. We'll see what he says.


----------



## bigshot

shike said:


> Either way I've mostly found my ideals in this heathen technology called Ambiophonics outside headphone land so I haven't participated in headphone discussions much recently.


 
  
 What is Ambiophonics? That sure sounds interesting to me.


----------



## Shike

bigshot said:


> What is Ambiophonics? That sure sounds interesting to me.


 
  
 Wikipedia has a solid intro on it:
  


Spoiler: Wiki Description



*[size=13.63636302948px]Ambiophonics[/size]*[size=13.63636302948px] is a method in the public domain that employs digital signal processing (DSP) and two loudspeakers directly in front of the listener in order to improve reproduction of stereophonic and 5.1 [/size][size=13.63636302948px]surround sound[/size][size=13.63636302948px] for music, movies, and games in home theaters, gaming PCs, workstations, or studio monitoring applications. First implemented using mechanical means in 1986,[/size][size=10.9090909957886px][1][/size][size=10.9090909957886px][2][/size][size=13.63636302948px] today a number of hardware and [/size][size=13.63636302948px]VST[/size][size=13.63636302948px] plug-in makers offer Ambiophonic DSP.[/size][size=10.9090909957886px][3][/size][size=13.63636302948px] Ambiophonics eliminates crosstalk inherent in the conventional “stereo triangle” speaker placement, and thereby generates a speaker-binaural soundfield that emulates headphone-[/size][size=13.63636302948px]binaural[/size][size=13.63636302948px], and creates for the listener improved perception of “reality” of recorded auditory scenes. A second speaker pair can be added in back in order to enable 360° surround sound reproduction. Additional surround speakers may be used for hall ambience, including height, if desired.[/size]


  
 Things that are similar but not quite up to snuff in the past would be Carver Sonic Holography, Polk SDA, etc. if you're familiar with them.  The difference is we now have recursive based elimination (RACE) and keep the front channels center to prevent pinna localization.
  
 Definitely a love it or hate it thing for a lot of people.  If you like the sound of large panel electrostatic speakers, want sound that is able to go outside the normal stereo triangle, and enjoy experimenting with DSP it's definitely worth playing around with.
  
 If interested the ambiophonics homesite includes tutorials, whitepapers, AES stuff they presented, etc:
  
http://www.ambiophonics.org/
  
 I dipped my toes in and now have a dedicated setup for it.  I have a panambio setup, except with music I use a 50% wet convolved signal on the back rather than adding extra speakers for ambience.
  
 EDIT: fixed HRTF to Pinna


----------



## davidsh

shike said:


> Okay, which one of you guys is copycatting me at innerfidelity?  Pretty funny


 
 Interesting debate there...
  
 Ambiophonics, guess I should research more before asking question, but how do you get around the problem that resonances and frequency response can change (a lot) if not in the right listening position?
  
 After reading a lot of different threads, including the one posted about synergistic research I feel a whole lot of conspiracy creeping up on me. The audiophile world is hard to navigate.. Now I begin to doubt head-fi and its motives, too. Conspiracy, I say


----------



## Shike

> Ambiophonics, guess I should research more before asking question, but how do you get around the problem that resonances and frequency response can change (a lot) if not in the right listening position?


 
  
 Well you have to listen in the sweetspot much like you would a narrow dispersion ESL.  Since the speakers are place close together (30 degree total angle max compared to the 60 of a normal stereo triangle) means that reflections and resonance should usually be quite similar.  It also helps with room reflections as they should be more uniform than not.  Another note on resonance is that ambiophonics usually employees a high-pass and low-pass so it isn't applied to the lowest lows and it stops before any real high treble comes in.
  
 I'm sure you can find more in-depth explanation on the site, I'm just paraphrasing from what I remember at this point.


----------



## bigshot

shike said:


> Wikipedia has a solid intro on it:


 
  
 Do you have a floor plan for speaker placement? Is it a second set of mains tight in against the center channel? I may be doing a really primitive version of that already. I have two sets of mains. The true mains are 16 feet apart and are EQ'ed full range, handing off to the the sub at 60Hz. The second set of mains are six feet apart and are EQed to favor midrange and upper mids. The center channel covers a full spectrum from about 160Hz up. Overall the EQ of all of them together is flat. The layout localizes centered vocals and guitar solos better in music, filling in the phantom center completely; and focuses the dialogue across the full width of the projection screen (ten feet) in movies. The effect, when I use it with Yamaha's stereo to 5.1 DSP is to create a huge soundstage about 20 feet wide and 15 feet tall with pinpoint accuracy if the recording is miked realistically.
  
 Is that similar?


----------



## Shike

bigshot said:


> Do you have a floor plan for speaker placement? Is it a second set of mains tight in against the center channel? I may be doing a really primitive version of that already. I have two sets of mains. The true mains are 16 feet apart and are EQ'ed full range, handing off to the the sub at 60Hz. The second set of mains are six feet apart and are EQed to favor midrange and upper mids. The center channel covers a full spectrum from about 160Hz up. Overall the EQ of all of them together is flat. The layout localizes centered vocals and guitar solos better in music, filling in the phantom center completely; and focuses the dialogue across the full width of the projection screen (ten feet) in movies. The effect, when I use it with Yamaha's stereo to 5.1 DSP is to create a huge soundstage about 20 feet wide and 15 feet tall with pinpoint accuracy if the recording is miked realistically.
> 
> Is that similar?


 
  
 I think it's going for the same end game, but yours uses localization while ambiophonics tries to eliminate localization of the speakers so that the recording provides it instead if that makes sense.
  
 First, ambiophonics only requires four speakers though more are welcome as ambiance speakers.  For HT the center channel is simply downmixed to the front.  The two main speakers are put close together to create a very tight angle, and the same with the rear speakers, like so:
  




 (from the Ambiophonics site)
  
  
 Then acoustic xtalk cancellation is used - the newest cutting edge is RACE.  I'm quoting the explanation of it here:
  


> The basic crosstalk canceling technique we have developed and are making available free to the internet community is the Recursive Ambiophonic Crosstalk Eliminator or RACE. Recursive is the operating word. When a signal from the left speaker undesirably reaches the right ear, it must be cancelled at that ear by an inverted, perfectly delayed, slightly lower level replica from the right speaker. But this cancellation signal will also reach the left ear and so it must also be cancelled (2nd order cancellation) by a properly conditioned signal from the left speaker, which signal then also reaches the right ear requiring another round (3rd order) of cancellation, and so on. For a greater tolerance for non-ideal speakers, to avoid frequency response errors, and to enlarge the listening area, this recursive “ping-pong” correction needs to be carried out to inaudibility. We have demonstrated that up to five people can hear the same wide stage even from two small speakers using this method. 
  
 Link to figure 2: http://www.ambiophonics.org/images/RACE%20flowchart.png
  
 If properly miked as you mentioned the sound can be perfectly centered to +/- 85 degrees on either side from center.  Panambio provides back speakers which you want to do the same thing with.
  
 Then a cool trick for music is that you can add additional speakers and play 100% convoluted sound of a hall (Waves VST and impulses) to create ambiance.  In comparison I use 50% wet signal on the rear channels which gives a similar effect.
  
  
 The downfall to this method is that you must be in a line with the speakers so if you have more than one person they would have to be in-front or behind.  My ambio rig is fixed at my computer desk and my HT/anti-sweet spot setup is composed of omni speakers for this reason.
  
  
 I think the best explanation of the theory and working is in this understanding/installing tutorial:
  
http://www.ambiophonics.org/Tutorials/UnderstandingAmbiophonics_Part1.html
  
 This will explain it infinitely better than I could.


----------



## bigshot

It looks like that would work best in a fairly small room. kind of like those racing simulators at game arcades where you get inside a cockpit.
  
 This is like the mirror opposite of what I do. Instead of trying to expand the soundstage into a large solid field, your system makes a tiny compact densely organized one that you sit close to. I guess the accuracy of the field depends on how tight together everything is.
  
 It would be a LOT easier to get a small installation tuned properly than it would a traditional large room 5.1 system. I really didn't have a choice, because my system is wrapped around a ten foot projection screen. But I can see for apartments and bedrooms, that would be a huge advantage over bookshelf stereo speakers or headphones.
  
 I'm convinced that the future of high end audio lies in DSPs and multichannel speaker installations. I'm itching for Atmos, but the shape of the roof of my listening room would be impossible to control. It has a high peaked ceiling, and I just know if I flew speakers into the rafters, it would end up being like a ping pong game of reflections up there.
  
 One thing I would really like to have someday is 8.1 with two side speakers and a center channel in the rear to bridge the phantom center behind me. I think that would complete the mesh of the sound field in the middle and allow for some pretty sophisticated room ambiences and instrument placement within the room itself.
  
 My speaker configuration is pretty unconventional, but within the context of the room, it works great. The mains are in a semi circle in front. The center and rears are elevated slightly above the listening position, and the mains are ear level. The sub fires in along the floor. The number 1 mains are toed in slightly. The effect this creates is a wraparound soundstage up front with a front to back tipped slightly down, like you are in orchestra seat risers slightly above the performers. With classical recordings and jazz, this arrangement works real good, and the nice part is that it is absolutely perfect for movies too. The far end of the couch is a little dicey sound wise and angle wise on the screen, but it's perfect for lying down with your feet pointing at the screen.


----------



## Shike

> I guess the accuracy of the field depends on how tight together everything is.


 
  
 The front channels have to be tight together, but it will work as long as you're centered and far enough away to generate a tight angle for the lower delay levels.  For example if the speakers surrounded a 5' screen you would need to sit ~10' away at the least (basically double whatever the separation of the front speakers is).  Thankfully since I'm using my old NHT SZ XU speakers they are basically less than an inch apart.
  
  
 The biggest advantage of the smaller setup is probably ease in centering the sweetspot, but it isn't just for small rooms:
  




  
 That's from the main ambiophonics page - it's a panambio setup with tons of ambience speakers and driving electronics.
  
 The biggest disadvantage though is what you mentioned - having to surround a screen.  With the right acoustically transparent screen for a projector you could fire straight through it, the other option is having the screen above the speakers or vice-versa - hopefully without making it uncomfortable.  Still - it really only works for single person viewing which is why I use omni in that situation or view at my PC.
  


> I'm convinced that the future of high end audio lies in DSPs and multichannel speaker installations.


 
  
 Agreed.  My software chain looks like a nightmare though having to use voicemeter>audiomulch>ElectriQ>electro-music ambio VST>Waves Convolution (for music - otherwise bypassed>Dobly Digital Live> finally out >_>'


----------



## Roly1650

shike said:


> Agreed.  My software chain looks like a nightmare though having to use voicemeter>audiomulch>ElectriQ>electro-music ambio VST>Waves Convolution (for music - otherwise bypassed>Dobly Digital Live> finally out >_>'



This looks very interesting and the cost of entry is modest, I already have most of the hardware for a four speaker setup and no screens to worry about, music only. This may be a dumb question, I haven't waded through all the links you provided yet. You have implemented your setup entirely through your pc, so the pc is the source, right? If my assumption is correct, what are the pros and cons of doing it your way as opposed to standalone dsp's? I should add, I have a bit of an aversion to software piled on top of software, but that's just me!


----------



## Shike

roly1650 said:


> This looks very interesting and the cost of entry is modest, I already have most of the hardware for a four speaker setup and no screens to worry about, music only. This may be a dumb question, I haven't waded through all the links you provided yet. You have implemented your setup entirely through your pc, so the pc is the source, right? If my assumption is correct, what are the pros and cons of doing it your way as opposed to standalone dsp's? I should add, I have a bit of an aversion to software piled on top of software, but that's just me!


 
  
 Sorry for the late replay.
  
 1) Yes, PC is the source - there's ways of implementing it without a PC - MiniDSP has released Ambio units which will get you pan ambio - no convolution, but if you reduce the volume of the back channels it will expand the width a slight bit further according to some of the pages, just dial in where it sounds good and leave it.
  
 2) Complexity and cost most likely.  Depending on what you're intent is a simple stereo setup can be done with a single VST.  When you involve convolution, panambio, etc. cost and complexity goes up.  I'll be happy to answer any setup questions I can as to what's the best solution IME.  You also need a a somewhat faster PC if you plan on doing anything on the PC while it's doing its magic - I use a i5 2500K and hit roughly 5.5% CPU usage in Audiomulch.  The latency isn't too high but faster is always better in this case.  This is of course if doing anything beyond simple stereo, if only doing stereo and music it's unlikely even somewhat older PCs will have much an issue.
  
 3) Your aversion is somewhat justified - there is a lot of software chaining going on in my config.  You have to do some research and work to get it to function how you want.  Then again, with someone that has already done it the setup should be substantially easier . . .
  
 If you want to just do a simple stereo test the VST alone is $10 at electro-music.  You pay, and they eventually email you a link.  Turn around and make sure you get version 1.2.  From there put your speakers right next to each other, sit so you have a total of 30 degree angle (15 per side) max.  Use a plugin to use the VST if using FB2K or use it natively with jriver.  Pop up the VST and lower the delay to 45ms, up recursion to 50%, volume max, zentum up a bit if you want the center to be a bit forward in the stage (I set it to one), and adjust space till it sounds reasonable (I have it at 3.0 myself).  That will give you the effect with a very straight forward sound, possibly in the studio with the band is how I'd describe it.  To get the "live" type sound takes a lot more work, and the more realistic you want the more work/equipment it needs.  I think mine is a nice happy medium.


----------



## Roly1650

shike said:


> Sorry for the late replay.
> 
> 1) Yes, PC is the source - there's ways of implementing it without a PC - MiniDSP has released Ambio units which will get you pan ambio - no convolution, but if you reduce the volume of the back channels it will expand the width a slight bit further according to some of the pages, just dial in where it sounds good and leave it.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info, I may give it a go this winter.


----------



## bigshot

Well, I guess we couldn't avoid it. We'll have to create a new thread for the test results when they come in.


----------



## Head Injury

As long as the next thread doesn't go off on a religious tangent and isn't reported to clean up less than a page of it, they won't have an excuse to permanently lock the whole discussion.


----------



## SilentFrequency

head injury said:


> As long as the next thread doesn't go off on a religious tangent and isn't reported to clean up less than a page of it, they won't have an excuse to permanently lock the whole discussion.




I didn't know religious talk was disallowed until it was brought up on that thread by another member shortly before thread was locked.

But now I know I guess, must re-check the rules again though myself!


----------



## castleofargh

silentfrequency said:


> head injury said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the next thread doesn't go off on a religious tangent and isn't reported to clean up less than a page of it, they won't have an excuse to permanently lock the whole discussion.
> ...


 

 religion and politic are very much the basic topics that will get you into a fight with a stranger. that's how it is, that's how 95% of wars, ethnic cleansing and all the crazy stupid massacres started throughout history. so those 2 are the kind of subjects you usually want to avoid when sharing your opinion with the entire planet ^_^.
  
 I'm not shocked that the topic was closed, even though it would have been pretty simple to remove 5posts instead. what I find disturbing, was, and is, to see headfi refuse to take a stand against that stupid product. and instead was just waiting for the legit opportunity to throw out the baby with the bath water.
 the "all is subjective" joke has turned into a get out of jail free card for all scammers. amateur audio is dirty, everyday sees the triumph of ignorance over reality. it's unlike any other hobby I've been into(and I've been into some dumb stuff when I was younger).
 to me products like the HOT (and having them as member of trade) plays a part in the reason why talking audio in here is often like talking to a dude coming straight from 1910. pretending that we are a community, that we love audio, and doing nothing to get out of the mess we're in. I call it a lie.


----------



## SilentFrequency

castleofargh said:


> religion and politic are very much the basic topics that will get you into a fight with a stranger. that's how it is, that's how 95% of wars, ethnic cleansing and all the crazy stupid massacres started throughout history. so those 2 are the kind of subjects you usually want to avoid when sharing your opinion with the entire planet ^_^.
> 
> I'm not shocked that the topic was closed, even though it would have been pretty simple to remove 5posts instead. what I find disturbing, was, and is, to see headfi refuse to take a stand against that stupid product. and instead was just waiting for the legit opportunity to throw out the baby with the bath water.
> the "all is subjective" joke has turned into a get out of jail free card for all scammers. amateur audio is dirty, everyday sees the triumph of ignorance over reality. it's unlike any other hobby I've been into(and I've been into some dumb stuff when I was younger).
> to me products like the HOT (and having them as member of trade) plays a part in the reason why talking audio in here is often like talking to a dude coming straight from 1910. pretending that we are a community, that we love audio, and doing nothing to get out of the mess we're in. I call it a lie.




Yes, as a newcomer to this audiophile "hobby" I am surprised by the wide differences of opinions on product ear marked as "snake oil" but can also say that I'm grateful for this Sound Science section for its objective scrutiny and I do feel wiser for it, so take that as you may, but I dare say many others, either members or guests will also have been educated to audio pit falls to avoid too, so I'd say the Sound Science section is an important rebuttal against ignorance.


----------



## Rajikaru

People take Mcdonald's to a high-end food fair...see what happens.


----------



## SilentFrequency

rajikaru said:


> People take Mcdonald's to a high-end food fair...see what happens.




omg!

"If you tell people it's organic, they will believe it's organic" 

Reality= it's was just McDonalds standard fast food.

Really good example of "expectation bias", right?

I actually found watching that as embarrassing for the people remarking on how better it tasted than McDonalds as funny as the premise of video was no doubt intended! 

This puts the phrase "the proof is in the eating" to question I guess?


----------



## Rajikaru

silentfrequency said:


> omg!
> 
> This puts the phrase "the proof is in the eating" to question I guess?


 
  
 It's generally a good idea to be extra skeptical. Best to do critical listening yourself, based on your music and preferences. 

 A good SPL meter and an A/B switch, both being available for less than $100 combined, is practically a requirement when considering spending thousands into the hobby. 

 Level matched and unbiased comparisons are very, very rare on the Internet. For this reason, hundreds, or even thousands of listening impressions on on-line forums, or even audio review blogs, don't mean very much. These could be just biases that are reinforced and repeated hundreds or thousands of times. Not impossible in an on-line forum or the Internet. 
  
 ...Most of which would disappear in a level-matched unbiased test.


----------



## justaname

Hey guys, I've seen people say planars benefit from more power, as compared to a dynamic headphone which may actually have a lower sensitivity. 

Isn't the power supplied by the amp enough as long as audio is not clipping? What are these "benefits"? 

I'm running my sr80 and hfi580 out of my note 3 just fine but apparently they all benefit from an amp. Sorry if this isn't the right place.


----------



## roadcykler

justaname said:


> Hey guys, I've seen people say planars benefit from more power, as compared to a dynamic headphone which may actually have a lower sensitivity.
> 
> Isn't the power supplied by the amp enough as long as audio is not clipping? What are these "benefits"?
> 
> I'm running my sr80 and hfi580 out of my note 3 just fine but apparently they all benefit from an amp. Sorry if this isn't the right place.


 
 According to some (a lot) of folks, more power equates to better sound. I'm not sure why they think that but they do. More power will almost certainly equate to louder and many people think that louder sounds better but I doubt that's the case.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

[size=12.8000001907349px]





justaname said:


> Hey guys, I've seen people say planars benefit from more power, as compared to a dynamic headphone which may actually have a lower sensitivity.
> 
> Isn't the power supplied by the amp enough as long as audio is not clipping? What are these "benefits"?
> 
> I'm running my sr80 and hfi580 out of my note 3 just fine but apparently they all benefit from an amp. Sorry if this isn't the right place.


  
 [/size]
 Comes down to the material, the essential theory is that by supplying more power to the diaphragm, you allow it to move more freely (move air particles better) and thus giving you better fidelity. Only applies to planars though...


----------



## Head Injury

kamijoismyhero said:


> Comes down to the material, the essential theory is that by supplying more power to the diaphragm, you allow it to move more freely (move air particles better) and thus giving you better fidelity. Only applies to planars though...


 

 Let's examine this reasoning logically.
  
 More power means the driver moves more. That means more volume. Volume is the result of power, based on the headphone's sensitivity. You can't separate power from volume, there's a causal relationship between them. So if you're listening at the same volume you're supplying the same power to the driver, no exceptions. Having more power doesn't add anything to the sound quality because it's not being used. If you have enough power for the peaks, more will not benefit you.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

head injury said:


> Let's examine this reasoning logically.
> 
> *More power means the driver moves more*. That means more volume. Volume is the result of power, based on the headphone's sensitivity. You can't separate power from volume, there's a causal relationship between them. So if you're listening at the same volume you're supplying the same power to the driver, no exceptions. Having more power doesn't add anything to the sound quality because it's not being used. If you have enough power for the peaks, more will not benefit you.


 
  
 From my understanding, it would move with less resistance to what ever position it needs to move to. It would not necessarily move more so I don't think it would add volume. I don't hear much difference with my amp on high gain but it does sound better louder


----------



## headwhacker

justaname said:


> Hey guys, I've seen people say planars benefit from more power, as compared to a dynamic headphone which may actually have a lower sensitivity.
> 
> Isn't the power supplied by the amp enough as long as audio is not clipping? What are these "benefits"?
> 
> I'm running my sr80 and hfi580 out of my note 3 just fine but apparently they all benefit from an amp. Sorry if this isn't the right place.


 
  
 People say that because most planar headphones are less efficient and less sensitive than most dynamic headphones. Less sensitive phone requires more power to reach the same level which a dynamic phone with higher sensitivity can reach for less power.


----------



## bigshot

And of course planners like the Oppo PM-1 don't require amping at all.


----------



## justaname

So more power = louder for a given sensitivity and impedance rating, regardless of type of driver? (Planar, dynamic, BA)


----------



## davidsh

justaname said:


> So more power = louder for a given sensitivity and impedance rating, regardless of type of driver? (Planar, dynamic, BA)



Yes.. A headphone gets louder with more power. Only 'exception' is electrostats, as they are more about voltage.


----------



## SilverEars

head injury said:


> Let's examine this reasoning logically.
> 
> More power means the driver moves more. That means more volume. Volume is the result of power, based on the headphone's sensitivity. You can't separate power from volume, there's a causal relationship between them. So if you're listening at the same volume you're supplying the same power to the driver, no exceptions. Having more power doesn't add anything to the sound quality because it's not being used. If you have enough power for the peaks, more will not benefit you.


 
 Volume is voltage level.  Changing the pot which is for adjusting the attenuator in front of the amp for increasing or decreasing the voltage to be amplified for a resultant voltage outputted that is connect to the load(a headphone).  Power is how much the amp draws current from the power source for the voltage level outputted to the load(or headhone).  Current depends on how much impedance is in the line for given applied volume level.  Given a fixed volume level, one load may draw more power or less.
  
 Sensitivity is output per voltage level, and efficiency is output per power level.  
  
 Voltage output depends on the internal impedance of the amp relative to load.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

justaname said:


> Hey guys, I've seen people say planars benefit from more power, as compared to a dynamic headphone which may actually have a lower sensitivity.
> 
> Isn't the power supplied by the amp enough as long as audio is not clipping? What are these "benefits"?
> 
> I'm running my sr80 and hfi580 out of my note 3 just fine but apparently they all benefit from an amp. Sorry if this isn't the right place.




To specifically answer your question, both your headphones are of low impedance, which means that you should be able to drive them reasonably loud out of your smartphone because of the low voltage swing required. On the other hand, if you're regularly nearly topping out the volume slider on your Note, you may benefit from amplification because low impedance cans are more prone to cause a source to clip when near its maximum volume (because of the higher current draw for the same volume setting).


----------



## SilentFrequency

rajikaru said:


> It's generally a good idea to be extra skeptical. Best to do critical listening yourself, based on your music and preferences.
> 
> 
> A good SPL meter and an A/B switch, both being available for less than $100 combined, is practically a requirement when considering spending thousands into the hobby.
> ...




I think I found a unbiased headphone comparison test! 

The title of the video is a little misleading tbh, but this is totally a blind unbiased test plus also a non blind (biased?) headphone test between two headphone brands using random students from a campus 

[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/-QUU8ZISDXc[/VIDEO]


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

It is blind but not double blind nor is it volume matched


----------



## SilentFrequency

kamijoismyhero said:


> It is blind but not double blind nor is it volume matched




It may be rudimentary but still has value nontheless? 

Well, I found it kind of interesting nontheless


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Hang around sound science some more and you will get the sarcasm


----------



## SilentFrequency

kamijoismyhero said:


> Hang around sound science some more and you will get the sarcasm




Oh, then maybe I misunderstood?

But I sometimes don't get humour/sarcasm anyway, that's just me though


----------



## miceblue

bigshot said:


> The term soundstage is the most misused word around here. Soundstage is a function of recording and playback on speakers, not headphones. Headphones don't have soundstage.



Are headphones unaffected by the Haas effect then?


----------



## castleofargh

miceblue said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > The term soundstage is the most misused word around here. Soundstage is a function of recording and playback on speakers, not headphones. Headphones don't have soundstage.
> ...


 

 we've had that conversation before and everybody's happy with headstage for headphones and soundstage for speakers, so I go with that now ^_^.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> we've had that conversation before and everybody's happy with headstage for headphones and soundstage for speakers, so I go with that now ^_^.


 
  
 So what do you call perceptions based on HRTFs… out-of-headstage?


----------



## SilentFrequency

rrod said:


> So what do you call perceptions based on HRTFs… out-of-headstage?




Binaural?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function


----------



## RRod

silentfrequency said:


> Binaural?
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function


 
  
 You make binaural recordings so you don't have to apply HRTFs. But it was meant to be a joke


----------



## SilentFrequency

rrod said:


> You make binaural recordings so you don't have to apply HRTFs. But it was meant to be a joke




Oh, sorry.

I probably didn't get the joke because I'm new to audiophile world.


----------



## RRod

silentfrequency said:


> Oh, sorry.
> 
> I probably didn't get the joke because I'm new to audiophile world.


----------



## Greenears

rajikaru said:


> A good SPL meter and an A/B switch, both being available for less than $100 combined, is practically a requirement when considering spending thousands into the hobby.


 
  
 Hammer-drop - sold.  I'm in.  I'm in the market for some selected new gear and also to decide on a digital format for all my music in the future that I will never need to re-do.  Ambitious I know but I'm not starting from zero far from it.
  
 Please recommend the names of these items (SPL meter and A/B switch) and generally where I can get them.  I already know I'm in for a bit of an odyssey since audio stores are not set up to enable A-B comparisons ... surprise surprise.  But I think A-B testing is doable with some perseverance.


----------



## bigshot

A pair of preamps for level matching are needed too. You can usually find inexpensive used ones on eBay. It helps to get the same make and model.


----------



## Greenears

bigshot said:


> A pair of preamps for level matching are needed too. You can usually find inexpensive used ones on eBay. It helps to get the same make and model.


 

 I don't mind doing that but I was hoping the sources would have volume controls and I could use that to adjust the levels.  Otherwise they will say something like "your pre-amp colored the sound and invalidated the test"   Sources and DACs are a big part of the test for me, as well as speakers.  However I think I have a reference source with volume control, the problem is how to get material onto the second source.


----------



## bigshot

Not all sources have adjustable line out levels. If you are using a preamp as a switcher, it will use the same volume for both.
  
 It's no trick to make an audibly transparent preamp. You can get tons of them at ebay for around $30 or less.


----------



## Don Hills

bigshot said:


> ...
> It's no trick to make an audibly transparent preamp. You can get tons of them at ebay for around $30 or less.


 
  
 The hard part is determining which of them are audibly transparent, short of buying them all and testing them.


----------



## bigshot

I have yet to find a solid state preamp that isn't audibly transparent. It's very simple to determine. You take two preamps and feed the same signal into them. Level match and switch. If there is no difference between them, you are good to go.


----------



## Greenears

OK, so let me summarize to see if I got it right.  If I want to compare two power amplifiers A/B, I bring in my 2 preamps, use a Y cable to feed the two preamps, then each preamp into each power amp being tested, then into an A/B switch into one set of speakers.  I guess it's not a great example since power amps should be unit gain on the voltage out, but anyway just in case there is attenuation you use your SPL meter to calibrate both sides to the same volume.
  
 To be double blind, I guess you need a second disinterested party to do the switching, and purposely randomize it. 
  
 Is that the gist of it?


----------



## bigshot

Comparing two power amps would involve putting a switch box between the amps and the speakers. For comparing headphone amps, you would switch between the headphone output. Comparing sources would mean taking the two outputs into a preamp to balance the line level, then into your power amp and switch there. It all depends on what you are comparing.


----------



## Greenears

Right ... so I guess you are saying an A/B switch and 2 preamps is enough to put any gear in the chain under test.  My only question is about Y cable on an output, like say when you sending a single source into two devices.  Won't the naysayers say that negates the test?  I ask because it is not so common to find two matched sources you can test easily, like say two high end CD players.  If I'm testing something downstream best to take the source out the equation.


----------



## Rajikaru

greenears said:


> Please recommend the names of these items (SPL meter and A/B switch) and generally where I can get them.  I already know I'm in for a bit of an odyssey since audio stores are not set up to enable A-B comparisons ... surprise surprise.  But I think A-B testing is doable with some perseverance.


 
  

  
 Here's what I use - it's an Extech 407730 meter. There are more expensive and accurate type 2 (or type 1) meters available, meant for industrial/lab use. But for checking the relative volume between two amps out of a headphone, I think this does just fine. I just take several readings back and forth with a noise track to be reasonably confident the levels are matched. 
  

  
 In case anyone was wondering about the green light in background of the above image, I'm listening to this unannounced portable amp (minus the front panels) right now. Linkin Park's _Papercut_ sounds so satisfyingly fast and furious on my Audio-Technicas (It's been a long day at work hahaha.)
  
 No idea what the amp is going to be called eventually, but right now, I'm calling it the _Objective 2's Baby_ .


----------



## stv014

It might be more reliable to measure the voltage (while playing a test tone) on the headphones with a splitter and a multimeter. Or just the unloaded amplifier output voltage when sources are compared.


----------



## Rajikaru

stv014 said:


> It might be more reliable to measure the voltage (while playing a test tone) on the headphones with a splitter and a multimeter. Or just the unloaded amplifier output voltage when sources are compared.


 
  
 That would be the most accurate method. 
  
 Is there a specific multimeter you would recommend for measuring output voltage and output impedance?


----------



## bigshot

Accuracy can be a rabbit hole. You have to keep perspective on *why* you're doing the test in the first place. It isn't to get accurate abstract measurements. It's to determine the effect something has on listening to music on your system. If you want to precisely measure a subtle difference, that can be very complicated and involved. But it isn't a heck of a lot of work to quickly patch two things into a switcher, do a ballpark level match and determine that the difference doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
  
 Most audiophiles who sweat "the last 1%" haven't even taken the time to address the broad strokes issues yet. It's best to work from the biggest issues down to the smallest. If you do it the other way around, you'll find that you're wasting your time on things that wouldn't even exist if you had simply addressed the large scale issues first.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

When it comes to headphones, I think it would be simpler to take it as given that an entry level source, DAC and amp of adequate power will be able to drive your headphones transparently and move on to choosing your headphones... (or shaping them, as I do  )

If it's a matter of loudspeakers, invest in sound treatment at the first reflection points and then a flagship AV amp that has sophisticated loudspeaker calibration, eg Audyssey XT32.

My humble opinion is you're usually up a certain creek without a paddle if you're having to depend on the different sound "signatures" of different boutique source components to make or break your audio experience. If you need to change the sound of your music, change it for real (using DSP).


----------



## bigshot

I'm with you 100% on all those points.


----------



## NLNH

subbed


----------



## bigshot

Welcome to the party, NLNH.


----------



## NLNH

Got cheapo artificial ear for impulse response / freq scanning : <
 trying to put EQ to work seriously
  
 newbie here dragged in by Joe


----------



## Greenears

joe bloggs said:


> When it comes to headphones, I think it would be simpler to take it as given that an entry level source, DAC and amp of adequate power will be able to drive your headphones transparently and move on to choosing your headphones... (or shaping them, as I do
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 It's a good idea. How much does an Audyssey enabled amplifier usually cost?  Are these active feedback (as in they monitor the material and change the equalization, or is it a measure it - set it - and forget it?)  I'm wondering if this can be done using a laptop as source as well.


----------



## bigshot

Most AV receivers have equalizers built in. I have a Yamaha myself. Onkyo, Dennon, etc. too. I'm not convinced that Audyssey is so great though. It can give you a place to start from, but it can be a long way off from where you want to end up at. That takes a little work and careful listening.
  
 Once you have calibrated your equalization response curve the way you want it, you never need to touch it again. It works for any source that is audibly transparent (computer, disk, iPod, etc.)
  
 I've never played with one of those gadgets, NLNH. I always tune EQ by ear. How closely does the artificial ear match the response of a human ear? A lot of people talk about specs in the abstract and never relate them to the range and limitations of human hearing. I always cut to the chase and just use a real ear. I have it connected to me 24/7 so it's convenient for me!


----------



## ferday

personally i really like Audessy.  For me, it was a great place to start and really cut a lot of time doing manual measuring/EQ'ng (it really helped with the room!)
  
 there is an active Audessy mode on my receiver (onkyo) and although i don't really ever use it, it does sound nice and because it's so easy it may be something you're looking for


----------



## bigshot

When I used the auto EQ function on my receiver, it got the crossover between the mains and the sub right, but it dialed down the volume on the sub down to nothing. The volume relationship between the mains, center and rears were all imbalanced too. When I corrected for that, it threw the equalization on each channel off again. I corrected for that and it threw off the relative volumes again. I had to do a few weeks of parallel parking between volume and response to get it into the correct range. When I was close to being happy with it, I brought in an engineer buddy to run tones and see if he could improve upon it. He told me that I had gotten it as flat as I could with a 5 band parametric equalizer.
  
 Another thing that affects it is DSPs. The relative volume of the channels using a DSP was different than typical 5.1 blu-rays. So I had to calibrate for both, which threw off the EQ again. It was an ongoing process for a while. But I learned a lot and my ears are considerably smarter now. If I have a problem, I know exactly where in the frequency spectrum it lies.


----------



## ferday

bigshot said:


> It was an ongoing process for a while. But I learned a lot and my ears are considerably smarter now. If I have a problem, I know exactly where in the frequency spectrum it lies.


 
  
 it's still an ongoing process for me, but thanks to a lot of people (yourself included bigshot!) i have also learned a lot and now have a multichannel system that i'm extremely proud of sound wise.  i don't have a sound engineer buddy LOL so i can only go off of my measurements (REW)
  
 it's true it takes a bunch of manual work, but for me Audessy made an excellent starting point and taught me a lot about the process.  when i first started making chirps with it i moved my couch around and stuff just to see how it would affect everything and it was pretty informative


----------



## Greenears

Thank you for all the responses on amplifier EQ.  I gave you all a "like".  Interesting how so many people came out of the woodwork on this, but I rarely hear it talked about.  I personally use EQ on my laptop, it is 5 band graphic and I don't think the best quality but for rough and ready listening it works better than none.  Since I move the laptop around to various rooms and various headphones I've found myself saving files for each speaker & phone and several genres of music.
  
 I will definitely consider upgraded EQ whether a dedicated application or an outboard unit. 
  
 My takeaway is you want to fine tune it once for the speakers and room combination, and try to get it as "flat" as you can.  If you have reasonable speakers then you should be pretty neutral after that and able to handle any material.  Sounds like a simple sound meter and pink noise source well help gross level adjust but you still need to fine tune with ears.   Good to hear Onkyo and others offer EQ options, and Audyssey or others may all work.


----------



## bigshot

Have you tried the CDs I recommended? The Reiner Marche Slav can be very handy for making sure the low end is balanced. Glad to hear your system is up and working. It's really amazing to make the jump from 2 to 5.1.


----------



## bigshot

Merry Christmas to all the sound science folks!


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> Merry Christmas to all the sound science folks!


 
  
 And to you too. I just let the kid know his gifts were bandlimited this year.


----------



## bigshot

Just a question for the regulars... Is it possible that there is an effort going on to troll Gregorio's 24 vs 16 bit and ProgRockMan's Testing Audiophile Claims threads to get them locked?


----------



## stv014

bigshot said:


> Just a question for the regulars... Is it possible that there is an effort going on to troll Gregorio's 24 vs 16 bit and ProgRockMan's Testing Audiophile Claims threads to get them locked?


 
  
 This may or may not be the case, but in general the best response to trolls is to ignore them.


----------



## ferday

stv014 said:


> This may or may not be the case, but in general the best response to trolls is to ignore them.




I find the best response to trolls here is to spend my time on hydrogen

Some great people and info here but it's getting bad lately. Poor big shot is running ragged


----------



## bigshot

I'm not really run ragged. I'm just bored with all the long blathering posts full of nonsense.


----------



## bigshot

I notice that Gregorio's "24 bit vs 16 bit Myth" and the "Testing Audiophile Myths" threads are particular targets of trolls. I think some folks would dearly love to see those threads get locked. Does anyone else get that feeling?


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> I notice that Gregorio's "24 bit vs 16 bit Myth" and the "Testing Audiophile Myths" threads are particular targets of trolls. I think some folks would dearly love to see those threads get locked. Does anyone else get that feeling?


 
  
 I don't get a sense that the current thread of conversation is really lock worthy; just lots of mind-numbing repeating, but that's internet forums


----------



## anetode

bigshot said:


> I notice that Gregorio's "24 bit vs 16 bit Myth" and the "Testing Audiophile Myths" threads are particular targets of trolls. I think some folks would dearly love to see those threads get locked. Does anyone else get that feeling?


 
  
Hanlon's razor.


----------



## bigshot

Ha! Well there's plenty of that to go around!


----------



## Ruben123

So been reading some expensive DAP threads/reviews last days and while I believe in confirmation bias etc. etc., I could not find (m)any DBT of different high end mp3 players. Except the impedance, could those Pono, Sony, Tera players not have any standard EQ turned on which you cannot turn off that gives them a different sound? Dont think so but I also couldnt find anything about it.
  
 Also the Sony ZX2 has two (!) crystals built-in which gives it a much brighter sound than ZX1 that has only one crystal. Omg!


----------



## castleofargh

ruben123 said:


> So been reading some expensive DAP threads/reviews last days and while I believe in confirmation bias etc. etc., I could not find (m)any DBT of different high end mp3 players. Except the impedance, could those Pono, Sony, Tera players not have any standard EQ turned on which you cannot turn off that gives them a different sound? Dont think so but I also couldnt find anything about it.
> 
> Also the Sony ZX2 has two (!) crystals built-in which gives it a much brighter sound than ZX1 that has only one crystal. Omg!


 

 for practical reason it is pretty much impossible to exactly time align a song on 2 daps(you press play at the same time and the faster processor or smaller buffer wins). and any loop when switching even for a really short time can be enough to identify one of the DAP, making the DBT ineffective. same with the volume setting, to get a comfortable listening level and also under 0.1db difference is really no small feat when some DAPs can go 3db by 3db at times with each step.
 for the hiss I guess we could deal use a not too sensitive headphone(but sensitive enough to be driven correctly even by a weak sony).

 my idea would be to just record the DAPs(several Kohm line input would make the impedance of the DAP irrelevant) and abx the result(once aligned), but then somebody would whine that the uber greatness of some expensive crap can't be recorded with a mere terrestrial soundcard, and is the reason people failed the test(or any of the usual denial anti test excuses).
   
 

  
 about the ZX series, well 2 is stronger than one! that's science, you need 2 ones to make a 2 ^_^. and crystal sounds bright, gold sounds warm, and only rainbow DAPs can give the full spectrum of frequencies. sony marketing has been once again very good at ignoring the elephant in the room by talking about how non amp related stuff were great when the amp is the bottleneck. I hope for people who bought the ZX2 that the output is weak but good.


----------



## bigshot

It doesn't matter which one is a tiny bit earlier or later if you have someone else start the playback while your back is turned.
  
 I think the reason that you don't see many DBTs of DAPs is because people know they all sound the same and don't bother to publish them. It's kind of like issuing a declaration that the sun came up this morning.


----------



## Don Hills

bigshot said:


> It's kind of like issuing a declaration that the sun came up this morning.


 
  
 Provide positive DBT results, or it didn't happen.


----------



## Head Injury

don hills said:


> Provide positive DBT results, or it didn't happen.


 

 I'll stare at it if you will.


----------



## castleofargh

head injury said:


> don hills said:
> 
> 
> > Provide positive DBT results, or it didn't happen.
> ...


----------



## Don Hills

head injury said:


> I'll stare at it if you will.


 

 Double *Blind* Test.


----------



## Head Injury

don hills said:


> Double *Blind* Test.


 

 Aw, you didn't get it. What better way to do a blind test than stare at the sun?


----------



## Don Hills

head injury said:


> Aw, you didn't get it. What better way to do a blind test than stare at the sun?


 
  
 No, I got it. Note the emphasis on the word *Blind*.


----------



## davidsh

#likehunter


----------



## sonitus mirus

And I was just getting ready to post this review as definitive proof of a CD mat's effectiveness.
  
 http://www.stereomojo.com/MILLENNIUM%20CD%20MAT%20REVIEW/MillenniumCDMatReview.htm
  
 The guy's wife immediately noticed a difference, so it has to work.  You just need to buy it, I mean, listen to it.


----------



## bigshot

That article employs the oldest of the snake oil sales techniques... "EVEN MY WIFE CAN HEAR A DIFFERENCE!"


----------



## headdict

sonitus mirus said:


> And I was just getting ready to post this review as definitive proof of a CD mat's effectiveness.
> 
> http://www.stereomojo.com/MILLENNIUM%20CD%20MAT%20REVIEW/MillenniumCDMatReview.htm
> 
> The guy's wife immediately noticed a difference, so it has to work.  You just need to buy it, I mean, listen to it.


 

 I just bought it, re-ripped my whole CD collection and immediately noticed some bits I had never heard before. Now it all sounds as if all the bits are for the very first time in perfect order and harmony, especially when I sit on the mat while listening. The difference is so obvious that I didn't bother to perform any DBT/ABX nonsense.


----------



## limpidglitch

sonitus mirus said:


> And I was just getting ready to post this review as definitive proof of a CD mat's effectiveness.
> 
> http://www.stereomojo.com/MILLENNIUM%20CD%20MAT%20REVIEW/MillenniumCDMatReview.htm
> 
> The guy's wife immediately noticed a difference, so it has to work.  You just need to buy it, I mean, listen to it.


 
  
 "If you have been reading Stereomojo for long, you know that I am a bit of a skeptic…"
  
 Only the least significant bit, apparently. 
  
  
 Yeah, yeah, I'll get my coat.


----------



## GrindingThud

When my wife says "Ohhhh yeah. BIG difference...." her eyes are usually rolling into the back of her head.


----------



## DrKC

Maybe I missed it, but the whole firmware update has completely changed the sound of my DAP is a bit of a stretch.  Over in the DX90 thread, the "lurker" modded firmware is supposed to be the only way to go.  When I looked at his website and read the description of the changes he made, there's nothing there that would alter the sound profile at all.  Anyway, something you bastions of objectivity might want to refute.


----------



## lamode

Just found this thread. Late to the party as usual!
  
 I am very interested in the topic of EQing headphones which started off the thread. People seem to dismiss so many phones based purely on frequency response preferences, although that is so easily remedied (assuming you use a smart listening device like a PC or smartphone which can run parametric EQ). Why are almost all head-fiers ignoring this?
  
 I won't be buying any headphones without EQing a group of them first, and judging them on other properties such as rise time, decay, distortion, dynamics, control, etc.


----------



## Mr Rick

lamode said:


> Just found this thread. Late to the party as usual!
> 
> I am very interested in the topic of EQing headphones which started off the thread. People seem to dismiss so many phones based purely on frequency response preferences, although that is so easily remedied (assuming you use a smart listening device like a PC or smartphone which can run parametric EQ). Why are almost all head-fiers ignoring this?
> 
> I won't be buying any headphones without EQing a group of them first, and judging them on other properties such as rise time, decay, distortion, dynamics, control, etc.


 
  
 Personally I like to purchase them, and listen to music with them, But hey, you do what you like.


----------



## castleofargh

lamode said:


> Just found this thread. Late to the party as usual!
> 
> I am very interested in the topic of EQing headphones which started off the thread. People seem to dismiss so many phones based purely on frequency response preferences, although that is so easily remedied (assuming you use a smart listening device like a PC or smartphone which can run parametric EQ). Why are almost all head-fiers ignoring this?
> 
> I won't be buying any headphones without EQing a group of them first, and judging them on other properties such as rise time, decay, distortion, dynamics, control, etc.


 

  people adamant against EQ are also those who know nothing at all about it. so as often, I'd say ignorance and witch hunting are the reason why almost all headfiers are ignoring this.
  
 also it's anti elite. if all you need to do to get nice pleasant sound is to EQ and maybe use a little crossfeed, then the guy who spent 3000$ on sources to color his hd800 will be sad.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

I have to say, there certainly has been some good popcorn eatin' entertainment in certain threads here the last couple of days...  Too much for the fun police it seems.


----------



## Ruben123

Unicorns are real!!


----------



## Ruben123

ruben123 said:


> Unicorns are real!!




Wrong


I know i cheated but i win guys.


----------



## bigshot

I have to say, I made myself laugh with the uht oh picture of the baby!
  
 We have fun around here at least. If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong!


----------



## Ruben123

A hobby is about fun. So is music. If youre spending $$$$ again and again to please yourself with higher quality music (which is debateable) instead of actually LISTENING to the music... Youre doing it wrong.
More an obsession with gear than hobby of music.


----------



## limpidglitch

bigshot said:


> I have to say, I made myself laugh with the uht oh picture of the baby!
> 
> We have fun around here at least. If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong!


 
  
 To paraphrase the good book:
  
 'When you are bored with Head-Fi you are bored with life"


----------



## Ruben123

Who of you owns a clip?


----------



## lamode

mr rick said:


> Personally I like to purchase them, and listen to music with them, But hey, you do what you like.




All headphones can reproduce music, so if that's your only requirement then buy the cheapest ones you can find. Some of us are searching for maximum detail and natural sound, and EQ can help to achieve that goal.


----------



## headdict

ruben123 said:


> Who of you owns a clip?



If you mean Sansa clip in all variations, I am proud owner of four zips.
But why are you posting this question here on this particular thread?


----------



## Ruben123

Just curious! Keep reading clip is a very cheap though good dap which may be the only one you need for ''audiophile'' listening.


----------



## Ruben123

lamode said:


> All headphones can reproduce music, so if that's your only requirement then buy the cheapest ones you can find. Some of us are searching for maximum detail and natural sound, and EQ can help to achieve that goal.




But there should be an absolute minimum I guess? Not every $15 can be eqed to sound like $200, but I get your point. $50 could be eqed to $200+ if done well.


----------



## lamode

ruben123 said:


> But there should be an absolute minimum I guess? Not every $15 can be eqed to sound like $200, but I get your point. $50 could be eqed to $200+ if done well.




Exactly, and once all headphones are EQ'd, the ranking and "bang for buck" might change radically.


----------



## headdict

ruben123 said:


> Just curious! Keep reading clip is a very cheap though good dap which may be the only one you need for ''audiophile'' listening.



Yes, with Rockbox it may be all you'll ever need, if it can drive your headphones.


----------



## castleofargh

I always keep at least 2(I officially have 4 but my mum steals then break them/lose them/make them swim on a regular basis, so I need to buy 2 or 3 ever year), nowadays I use them mostly for audiobooks and as backup, but I've been using them as main DAP for years before.
 the thing about a sansa clip(or + or zip or...) is that it's very small and relatively cheap. so even if you don't love the sound, you will find a use for it. for sport, or as a backup when your "real" DAP runs out of battery. it's so small that it's no problem to carry one around just in case.
  
 added to that, the DAP has flat signature, 1ohm output, and reasonable but not amazing measurements. so while it's not audiophile, it's the best "use and forget" you can dream of.
 also if you buy a version that is supported by rockbox, you also get the best EQ on a non android DAP.
 so no it's not the best, but many more expensive DAP are bigger, heavier, will not sound a lot better. let's not forget that we're talking about music on the go here, the portability is half of the problem and with a sansa, it's not a problem at all.


----------



## headdict

If portability is not an issue, do you know of any DAP that is objectively better, also in terms of EQ capabilities?


----------



## castleofargh

headdict said:


> If portability is not an issue, do you know of any DAP that is objectively better, also in terms of EQ capabilities?


 

 a good deal of DAPs are objectively better. I doubt it's obviously audible though unless impedance starts changing the signature. in fact an iphone is objectively better nowadays. I believe portable audio to have nicely improved in the last years, with more and more stuff sounding reasonably transparent.
  
 now for EQ capabilities, sadly no. unless you can rockbox the DAP or have an android DAP, I doubt you can get even remotely close. in fact I chose to hardcode some EQ because I find most of my DAP really not good enough in the EQ department(like my sony with no way to lower anything below 400hz...)
 I guess looking for what DAP can be rockboxed would be the best way to go at it. I didn't see a DX50 rockboxed so I don't know what functions are available, maybe the dx90 can be too (didn't really follow the thread but I believe I've seen that written somewhere). I think I remember a ihifi could be rockboxed too. but you'll have to look for more information.
  
 else if you get a nice sounding android DAP, installing viper4android on it opens a very wild range of crazy cool DSPs(real cool, I'm not talking surround laser cats, but really advanced tweakable stuff). I hate android in a DAP, but I often think about getting one just because of viper.


----------



## bigshot

Someone should back up the Audiophile Myths thread and all the links there. Our little friend has taken his comedy act there now and he's trying to get that thread locked too.


----------



## Steve Eddy

grindingthud said:


> When my wife says "Ohhhh yeah. BIG difference...." her eyes are usually rolling into the back of her head.




So I guess you'll be returning that bottle of Enzyte for a refund, eh? :veryevil:

se


----------



## Ruben123

My little brother is a bit handier with the solder iron etc, so I let him get my Clip+ living again. Well I helped. I cut a small piece of an extension cable, he soldered it to the motherboard (original 3.5mm jack gone dead) and with some glue and duct tape we have made the Clip as a Russian tank.
  
 By opening the Clip I put some angels, rhinestones, golden coins and some angels in it. Also spot the golden connector of the extension cable. Adds quite some freshness to the sound!
  
 Sounds great again. Remember the Clips are here around $60.
  
  
 I dont get what you say here though: "a good deal of DAPs are objectively better. I doubt it's obviously audible though unless impedance starts changing the signature. in fact an iphone is objectively better nowadays. I believe portable audio to have nicely improved in the last years, with more and more stuff sounding reasonably transparent."
  
 A good DAP should sound the same as another? And since the 0.5 Ohm imp of the Clip I dont get why others are better, other for the relatively weak amp.


----------



## headdict

castleofargh said:


> a good deal of DAPs are objectively better. I doubt it's obviously audible though unless impedance starts changing the signature. in fact an iphone is objectively better nowadays. I believe portable audio to have nicely improved in the last years, with more and more stuff sounding reasonably transparent.
> 
> now for EQ capabilities, sadly no. unless you can rockbox the DAP or have an android DAP, I doubt you can get even remotely close. in fact I chose to hardcode some EQ because I find most of my DAP really not good enough in the EQ department(like my sony with no way to lower anything below 400hz...)
> I guess looking for what DAP can be rockboxed would be the best way to go at it. I didn't see a DX50 rockboxed so I don't know what functions are available, maybe the dx90 can be too (didn't really follow the thread but I believe I've seen that written somewhere). I think I remember a ihifi could be rockboxed too. but you'll have to look for more information.
> ...


 
 Thanks for this exhaustive answer. I definitely owe you a cognac for that! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 By "hardcoding EQ" you mean recoding audio files with an EQ profile targeted to a specific phone that you intend to use them with, I suppose. You must be très désespéré. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Now for the real options... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Rockbox'able DAP - yeah, thought about that. It would have to be able to drive full-size headphones like T1 or my old AKG K500 or my future planar phones. That would be DX90, I guess. I'm currently not ready to spend this kind of money on mere electronics, but it's certainly worth a closer look. I would like to get rid of stock Rockbox's rather limited Q-value range, though. (Too limited for some narrower treble peaks.) Maybe doable by editing and recompiling the source code. Something to be checked...
  
 By "android DAP" you mean a real DAP rather than a smartphone? I never considered that. Since such stuff is not very wide spread compared to smartphones, I wonder if it would be easy to root, and if it would be supported by the Viper community. I suppose it would come with some nice stuff, like line out, but would lack network streaming capability on the other hand. Output impedance and power also to be checked...
  
 I have a Note II lying around - no longer in use. Easy to root and run Viper on. Output power insufficient and no line out. Not a real option, but I have it available for experiments.
  
 I'll have to think about it some more. For now clip zip does the job pretty good - with a little help from its friend, the FiiO E12.


----------



## uchihaitachi

What has been upto this point in time the DAP that has shown the best measurements under and without load?

I have seen the dscopeiii readings of the fiio x3 and it seems remarkably good. Any other ones?


----------



## bigshot

That depends on the load, doesn't it?


----------



## castleofargh

ruben123 said:


> I don't get what you say here though: "a good deal of DAPs are objectively better. I doubt it's obviously audible though unless impedance starts changing the signature. in fact an iphone is objectively better nowadays. I believe portable audio to have nicely improved in the last years, with more and more stuff sounding reasonably transparent."
> 
> A good DAP should sound the same as another? And since the 0.5 Ohm imp of the Clip I don't get why others are better, other for the relatively weak amp.


 
 well of course a good dap should sound the same as another. manufacturers might not all go for it. some because they just suck, others to comply with all the people who have the wrong idea and always somehow expect the most expensive stuff to sound different. as if a difference was the concrete evidence of improvement. in a world where we pretend that "better" is identical reproduction of a signal, it's quite the paradox.
 to me all good products have to sound the same, if one doesn't then it's audibly faulty. not that I will always dislike it, but I wouldn't think it's a better anything, and certainly wouldn't dare to come claim it on headfi like so many people do.
 and I do feel like we're slowly getting there, as cheap DAPs sound closer and closer to a real sound system. within the limitations of the amp section of course, even a cellphone can sound pretty nice under a particular load. they usually suck bad with low impedance stuff which is too bad as that's what people use them with. ^_^


headdict said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > a good deal of DAPs are objectively better. I doubt it's obviously audible though unless impedance starts changing the signature. in fact an iphone is objectively better nowadays. I believe portable audio to have nicely improved in the last years, with more and more stuff sounding reasonably transparent.
> ...


 
 yes by hardcoded I mean encoding the EQ(and a little crossfeed) when I convert the albums to mp3 for a µSD. at the risk of making the pono's engineer sad, I'm willing to ruin many things if it gives me the exact FR I like.
 and yes again, if it can't be rooted, android will not offer as much, and it would be useless for viper I believe.
 my ideal solution when portability isn't really the issue, would be an android phone into a DAC/amp. I couldn't get viper through the usb off my crappy tablet, and only the usb audio pro app offers sound through USB on it. but the samsung S3 I had for the tour http://www.head-fi.org/t/726569/review-tour-somic-mh412-viper4android-the-put-up-or-shut-up-review-and-tour did output usb with viper settings. I wouldn't pretend the sound getting out of viper is free of distortions, but when you can get pretty much exactly the sound you want (if you can create impulse responses then you really can do anything with the convolver), it can in many instances be worth the small audio fidelity drop IMO.
 if I wasn't such a grumpy old cat, I would do that, but I'm an android racist when it comes to DAPs. I like my buttons too much.
  


uchihaitachi said:


> What has been upto this point in time the DAP that has shown the best measurements under and without load?
> 
> I have seen the dscopeiii readings of the fiio x3 and it seems remarkably good. Any other ones?


 
 wihtout load it may possibly be the pono(at least for some measurements) that stuff can be impressive when plugged into nothing at all.
 now plugged into a 16ohm IEM or below, I would very very much doubt that the pono could come on top. (maybe I'm wrong, but it would be the logical price to pay for their design choices).
  
 I would suspect that the overall best results are obtained by the DAP with the best amp section. and that would also be the thing that gives best stability into a wider range of headphones. so the best measurement would probably be a DAP's LO + a great external amp, when measured at 16/32/300 ohm.
 strangely enough you can find audio measurements for cellphones(mostly chinese websites), but it's much harder to find the same for DAPs.




 that's the sorry world we live in. audiophiles are so deep in BS marketing that it has come to a point where cellphone users know more about audio specs than us. my "new" very favorite place for DAP measurements (sadly they have done very few yet) is the headphoniaks blog. they give exactly what I need, measurements into several loads. I hope they do a lot more in the future.


----------



## bigshot

Just get an iPod and headphones that don't require amping. That's what I did. It really isn't difficult to find things that sound good. People make choosing a player for your pocket into some sort of algebra equation.


----------



## RRod

Here's what I want in a DAP:
 .low output impedance
 .enough power for IEMs and typical portable headphones
 .crossfeed
 .EQ
 .****loads of storage space (128G is not a lot of storage 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)
 .good battery
  
 Why is this so hard? Consider the Pono: it's missing 4 of those. Sure it's not too pricey a DAP, but 4 strikes from a "high-end" product? So what happens instead, evidently, is you buy hardware that works and then hack software like Rockbox onto it if you can. Lame.


----------



## castleofargh

rrod said:


> Here's what I want in a DAP:
> .low output impedance
> .enough power for IEMs and typical portable headphones
> .crossfeed
> ...


 

 and that's why I still end up with several DAPs ^_^. because the one with battery doesn't have impedance or eq, the one with EQ doesn't have battery...
  I hate ipods(the all apple idea in fact), but they're objectively pretty good stuff. (apple, the proof that I'm a subjective fool!)


----------



## Ruben123

rrod said:


> Here's what I want in a DAP:
> .low output impedance
> .enough power for IEMs and typical portable headphones
> .crossfeed
> ...




Altmann Tera player.

lol
Sandisk offers some great value daps. Loaded with Rockbox+128 gb uSD, you have lots of memory, excellent eq, many crossfeed settings and 1 ohm output imp.


----------



## uchihaitachi

What is a portable amp that is most like the O2, no colouration and excellent measurements? Ironically I can't find any objective reviews or info on head fi except here!


----------



## castleofargh

uchihaitachi said:


> What is a portable amp that is most like the O2, no colouration and excellent measurements? Ironically I can't find any objective reviews or info on head fi except here!


 

 many amps have measurements that should lead to no coloration. the question is what will you drive with it? something like a UHA6S mkII, or a C5 will be good for portable headphones but might not for home stuff. and both have reported and measured transparent sound. well the 6S you can change the op amp so you can most likely part ways with transparency in some ways, but nobody forces you to ^_^.
 if you need a powerhouse, I believe the hifim8 delivers, but I'm sure there are a lot of others,my knowledge is limited and most of the amps I've tried weren't really transparent. with the exception of the headamp pico(not slim) it sounded great and transparent, and I believe measured nicely too but don't remember where I've seen measurements. but with sensitive IEMs it could hiss slightly and have channel imbalance. but with not too sensitive stuff, it sounded great. so it's again a matter of what you'll use as headphone/IEM.
 maybe some of the latest FIIO amps? didn't hear or read much about them so I don't know.
  
 I start to feel like I'm endorsing those guys, when it's just that they're the only ones where I've seen measurements.
 I bet ClieOS has a few ideas about good transparent amps.


----------



## uchihaitachi

bigshot said:


> Just get an iPod and headphones that don't require amping. That's what I did. It really isn't difficult to find things that sound good. People make choosing a player for your pocket into some sort of algebra equation.


 
 Algebra is much more straightforward than audiophile magic.


----------



## headdict

uchihaitachi said:


> What is a portable amp that is most like the O2, no colouration and excellent measurements? Ironically I can't find any objective reviews or info on head fi except here!


 

 FiiO E12 is a great affordable portable amp, which can drive anything from not too sensitive IEMs to reasonably efficient full-size headphones. It even comes with a quite usable crossed. IIRC you can look up measurements on innerfidelity.


----------



## headdict

rrod said:


> Here's what I want in a DAP:
> .low output impedance
> .enough power for IEMs and typical portable headphones
> .crossfeed
> ...


 

 You are so right. I would add "either enough power for typical non portable headphones or a line out" to your list of must-have requirements. My FiiO X3 meets both and has low output impedance. Much better and cheaper than Pono. If it only would run Rockbox...


----------



## uchihaitachi

headdict said:


> FiiO E12 is a great affordable portable amp, which can drive anything from not too sensitive IEMs to reasonably efficient full-size headphones. It even comes with a quite usable crossed. IIRC you can look up measurements on innerfidelity.


 
 How about for the HD800?


----------



## headdict

uchihaitachi said:


> How about for the HD800?


 

 I don't own them (unfortunately), so don't really know for sure. But I would be surprised if they were much less efficient than my old AKG K500, which E12 can drive with ease.
 audiobot9000.com says peak SPL will be 118.8 dB. Plenty enough IMO.


----------



## Currawong

bigshot said:


> I have a new game for us to play. When someone trolls, the first person to see it just hits quote and puts the single word "Wrong" under it. Then we all click the thumbs up button and push Add to Reputation on their refutation. That way, we won't get into stupid discussions of obviously wrong headed ideas that spiral on forever derailing otherwise useful threads. If you want to play this game with me, don't reply here, just click the thumbs up on this post.


 
  
 Wrong.
  
 Intentionally abusing the reputation system (it is connected with the stats linked on the front page of the site) has resulted in members being banned. This is a very good example of the attitude that we _don't_ want on Head-Fi. This isn't a place to conspire to be disrespectful to people.
  
 The correct method to deal with trolling is a: ignore it (don't reply) and b: report it.
  
 http://head-fi.org/a/posting-guidelines
  
And yes, your post has been deleted so that the reputation on it will be removed.


----------



## RRod

currawong said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Intentionally abusing the reputation system (it is connected with the stats linked on the front page of the site) has resulted in members being banned. This is a very good example of the attitude that we _don't_ want on Head-Fi. This isn't a place to conspire to be disrespectful to people.
> 
> ...


 
  
 How about dealing with people locking threads on 24bits by trolling it with CD mat discussions?


----------



## Currawong

rrod said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.
> ...


 

 How about following the guidelines I carefully wrote so you know how to deal with these things in the most effective way, so that threads don't get locked?


----------



## RRod

currawong said:


> How about following the guidelines I carefully wrote so you know how to deal with these things in the most effective way, so that threads don't get locked?


 
  
 You're obviously scanning this thread and found what bigshot did egregious enough to call him out for what's basically a joke. Why not say something to people who are heading popular threads down the path of locking?


----------



## castleofargh

so the up vote does nothing more than put your post on the right of the front page(never noticed it before right now)? I'm so disappointed, I was expecting some secret entrance to a mysterious "nice guy secret section" when you reach 1000 up-votes.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> so the up vote does nothing more than put your post on the right of the front page(never noticed it before right now)? I'm so disappointed, I was expecting some secret entrance to a mysterious "nice guy secret section" when you reach 1000 up-votes.


 
  
 I hear you get your UTF-8 posts upsampled to UTF-16.


----------



## RRod

headdict said:


> You are so right. I would add "either enough power for typical non portable headphones or a line out" to your list of must-have requirements. My FiiO X3 meets both and has low output impedance. Much better and cheaper than Pono. If it only would run Rockbox...


 
  
 Yeah, a lack of line out is always a facepalm, especially on any "full-size" model (I can forgive a Nano for cutting corners).


----------



## Currawong

rrod said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > How about following the guidelines I carefully wrote so you know how to deal with these things in the most effective way, so that threads don't get locked?
> ...


 
  
 No. Bigshot's post was reported by a member. The posts in the thread that was locked were reported. When a bunch of regular posters in a large thread are all trashing it, the thread becomes effectively worthless and is better restarted. 
  
 Conspiring to troll (which is what it amounts to) was considered obnoxious and intolerable from as far back in 1994 when I started in online communities. It is just as obnoxious and intolerable now. It sure as hell does not promote science, but does exactly the opposite.


----------



## RRod

currawong said:


> No. Bigshot's post was reported by a member. The posts in the thread that was locked were reported. When a bunch of regular posters in a large thread are all trashing it, the thread becomes effectively worthless and is better restarted.
> 
> Conspiring to troll (which is what it amounts to) was considered obnoxious and intolerable from as far back in 1994 when I started in online communities. It is just as obnoxious and intolerable now. It sure as hell does not promote science, but does exactly the opposite.


 
  
 I've been on the internet that long too, and bouts of trollbaiting are just par for the course. After all, the responses in the thread were to the repeated attempts to legitimize CD mats, which is another thing that doesn't serve science. But fair enough that threads are sometimes better restarted, even if "telling pseudo-science guy to can it" wasn't an option that was attempted. Guess it's time to play narc more often.


----------



## bigshot

I wish we could do something about our troll.


----------



## bufferoverflow

bigshot said:


> I wish we could do something about our troll.


 
  
 I guess we could snitch.. sorry, "report" him for his one-man conspiracy to troll ?
  
 @ *Currawong* :
 there is a limit to how many times one can stand to tell people that water is wet without them listening, at all -
 That's usually the point where you just throw a big bucket of water in their face and let them _experience_ it instead ..


----------



## bigshot

No point reporting. Better to deal with it individually and collectively.
  
 Another troll has joined in and is trying to throw out bait now. It won't work with me. I think the best way to approach it is with humor. When someone is that wrong and that insistent on remaining wrong, what else can you do but chuckle?


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> No point reporting. Better to deal with it individually and collectively.
> 
> Another troll has joined in and is trying to throw out bait now. It won't work with me. I think the best way to approach it is with humor. When someone is that wrong and that insistent on remaining wrong, what else can you do but chuckle?




Well, I would definitely not appoint you to be the judge of who is a troll and who is not. Just a few weeks ago, you accused those of us who highlighted your subjectivist beliefs about home theater setup of trolling. Just because someone presents alternative points of view to what you believe does not necessarily make them a troll. 

Who is a troll and who is not is typically best left to the mods, not some self appointed group in a sub forum area. In my experience, when groups on a forum begin to collectively feel empowered to decide who is a troll and who is not, they often use it to unfairly enforce their beliefs about the subject matter by trying to silence alternative opinions. And IMO, while the person being complained about that is posting in the myths thread might be misguided, off topic, not very (or at all) scientific about his reasoning, overly enthusiastic about his beliefs, and overly loquacious about them, that doesn't necessarily make him a troll. Just makes it annoying. I don't believe being annoying is itself necessarily a violation of the posting guidelines. But repeatedly labeling someone a troll would seem to be.


----------



## Mr Rick

bigshot said:


> No point reporting. Better to deal with it individually and collectively.
> 
> Another troll has joined in and is trying to throw out bait now. It won't work with me. I think the best way to approach it is with humor. When someone is that wrong and that insistent on remaining wrong, what else can you do but chuckle?


 
  
 I find judicious use of the "block member" function to be very effective.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Which DAP has the best objective line out measurements. Sorry to ask again, in this thread, but none of the other threads seem accurate or technically reliable enough....


----------



## bigshot

Yes, but you WERE trolling. You kept hammering away on a simple disagreement about how good "good enough" is, and kept bringing it up in unrelated threads.


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> Yes, but you WERE trolling. You kept hammering away on a simple disagreement and kept bringing it up in unrelated threads.




You made claims about HT configuration and setup that run counter to accepted best practices based on audio science, claims without evidence other than subjective evaluation (we can discuss those claims again if you would like to start a new thread). Myself and others countered them. That's one of the purposes of this forum, isn't it? To discuss subjectivists claims. And it wasn't just me that you accused of trolling. I'd be glad to find evidence of that if you really want to go there. 

But thank you for acknowledging that you feel empowered to silence discussion that you don't like by accusing people of trolling. This illustrates my point. Best to let the mods determine that, rather than having a group decide who to call troll or not.


----------



## Toom

In the AkG K3003 thread, I asked if they were worth the £700 Amazon are asking. A guy replied that they were stunningly musical earphones and although the treble could sometimes be harsh, that could be solved by turning down the volume briefly....

Is it just me or is that pure comedy?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

toom said:


> In the AkG K3003 thread, I asked if they were worth the £700 Amazon are asking. A guy replied that they were stunningly musical earphones and although the treble could sometimes be harsh, that could be solved by turning down the volume briefly....
> 
> Is it just me or is that pure comedy?




Well I use a multiband compressor to "turn down the volume" on selected frequencies "briefly" on all my headphones to deal with sibilance, which I believe is an inevitable part of the signature of a well-tuned pair of headphones or headphones / EQ combo


----------



## Toom

joe bloggs said:


> Well I use a multiband compressor to "turn down the volume" on selected frequencies "briefly" on all my headphones to deal with sibilance, which I believe is an inevitable part of the signature of a well-tuned pair of headphones or headphones / EQ combo


 
  
 Explain please.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Google "multiband compressor deess"


----------



## Toom

joe bloggs said:


> Google "multiband compressor deess"


 
  
 Oh sure, one of those? Sure, understood. Not really necessary though in my opinion, unless there's something wrong with your headphones.
  
  I dont think that AKG thread guy was talking about applying EQ or DSP, but perhaps he was. Either way, it sounds like 700 quid gets you an IEM thats too bright.


----------



## limpidglitch

I don't know if bigshot peruses InnerFidelity at any regularity, but the old Gramophone article mentioned in a recent post reminded me of him. And I tend to agree with the main sentiment as well.
  
  
  

  
  
  

   
 ('tis but a transcription I did)


----------



## uchihaitachi

Summary 
*Test**Sansa Clip+ - 16 Ohm**Cowon J3 - No Load**Cowon J3 - 16 Ohm (V-Moda Vibe)**Cowon J3 - 32 Ohm (Shure SE530)**Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB:*+0.04, -0.06+0.01, -0.06+0.22, -3.19+0.19, -1.66*Noise level, dB (A):*-89.4-90.6-90.1-90.5*Dynamic range, dB (A):*89.390.690.190.5*THD, %:*0.0470.00350.0290.049*IMD + Noise, %:*0.0640.00910.0420.109*Stereo crosstalk, dB:*-51.4-92.0-56.7-60.4
  
  
 I find that my Cowon J3 sounds, quite unnatural and 'thin' (not expansive) for the lack of a better word. Which of the above components could be an explanation for that?


----------



## uchihaitachi

FYI, I am using a 35ohm IEM....


----------



## maverickronin

limpidglitch said:


> I don't know if bigshot peruses InnerFidelity at any regularity, but the old Gramophone article mentioned in a recent post reminded me of him. And I tend to agree with the main sentiment as well.


 
  
 The more things change, the more they stay the same....
  


uchihaitachi said:


> I find that my Cowon J3 sounds, quite unnatural and 'thin' (not expansive) for the lack of a better word. Which of the above components could be an explanation for that?


 
  
 What does it sound "thin" in comparison to?  The Clip+?


----------



## uchihaitachi

maverickronin said:


> The more things change, the more they stay the same....
> 
> 
> What does it sound "thin" in comparison to?  The Clip+?


 
 It sounds more unnatural. It's quite difficult to describe, and (especially piano) sounds rather artificial. Which of the measured criteria could explain this?


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> It sounds more unnatural. It's quite difficult to describe, and (especially piano) sounds rather artificial. Which of the measured criteria could explain this?


 
  
 We still need to know what other source you're comparing it to.  You can't compare it real life because a recording will never sound the same as real life even if it was played back on perfect (and hence purely theoretical) equipment.


----------



## uchihaitachi

I was comparing it to a odac o2. I also compared it to a ipod line out to o2 and still the same result......


----------



## wakibaki

uchihaitachi said:


> Summary
> *Test**Sansa Clip+ - 16 Ohm**Cowon J3 - No Load**Cowon J3 - 16 Ohm (V-Moda Vibe)**Cowon J3 - 32 Ohm (Shure SE530)**Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB:*+0.04, -0.06+0.01, -0.06+0.22, -3.19+0.19, -1.66*Noise level, dB (A):*-89.4-90.6-90.1-90.5*Dynamic range, dB (A):*89.390.690.190.5*THD, %:*0.0470.00350.0290.049*IMD + Noise, %:*0.0640.00910.0420.109*Stereo crosstalk, dB:*-51.4-92.0-56.7-60.4
> 
> 
> I find that my Cowon J3 sounds, quite unnatural and 'thin' (not expansive) for the lack of a better word. Which of the above components could be an explanation for that?


 
  
 I don't like the frequency response. It's 40-15000Hz for a start, when I'd prefer to see 20-20,000. If these are the manufacturers figures, I suspect the flatness is a lot worse for the extended range.
  
 With 32 ohms, a -1.66 dB dip is quite noticeable. 0.1 dB is a perceptible difference.
  
 I looked up the output impedance, 2 ohms. This is at the very top end of acceptable and values of a fraction of an ohm are achievable. You can see the sensitivity to load in the difference between the loaded and unloaded values, and note how well the Sansa Clip does @ 16 ohms.


----------



## uchihaitachi

wakibaki said:


> I don't like the frequency response. It's 40-15000Hz for a start, when I'd prefer to see 20-20,000. If these are the manufacturers figures, I suspect the flatness is a lot worse for the extended range.
> 
> With 32 ohms, a -1.66 dB dip is quite noticeable. 0.1 dB is a perceptible difference.
> 
> I looked up the output impedance, 2 ohms. This is at the very top end of acceptable and values of a fraction of an ohm are achievable. You can see the sensitivity to load in the difference between the loaded and unloaded values, and note how well the Sansa Clip does @ 16 ohms.


 
 Would you attribute from the limited data that the 'incomplete' sound that I perceive is due to the bass roll off?


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> I was comparing it to a odac o2. I also compared it to a ipod line out to o2 and still the same result......


 
  
 The O2 is certainly a good reference.  The information is still incomplete but I think wakibaki is on the right track with the output impedance.  If the J3's is 2 ohms that's 4 times the O2's so differences in frequency response related to headphone's impedance curve will be greater with the J3 than the O2.
  
 The specifics would depend on the headphones though.  What model are they?


----------



## uchihaitachi

Heir Audio 8A, not sure if this would be of any help.
  
 Does high impedance at the source, result in a predictable deviant behaviour for the IEM frequency or, is it erratic?


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> Heir Audio 8A, not sure if this would be of any help.


 
  
 That will do it.  Multi BA IEMs tend to have very complicated impedance curves which can make output impedance issues more noticeable.
  


uchihaitachi said:


> Does high impedance at the source, result in a predictable deviant behaviour for the IEM frequency or, is it erratic?


 
  
 It's constant for a specific amount of output impedance and a specific headphone.  I don't have a graph for the 8A but I can show the the one for the Shure SE530 which was tested with the J3 in those results you posted earlier.  Look at pinkish trace in the second graph from the top left.  It shows how impedance (basically resistance in ohms at any particular frequency) changes at different frequencies.  If the impedance curve is perfectly flat then changes in output impedance of the amplifier will not change the frequency response of the headphone.  If it varies, then the output impedance of the amplifier can affect frequency response.
  
 Frequencies with a lower impedance will receive less power and will be cut while frequencies with a higher impedance will receive more power and be boosted.  The higher the output impedance of the amplifier, the greater these differences will be.  You can see in the graph that the SE530 has an impedance peak near 1.3khz and a dip around 5khz.  The greater the amp's output impedance the greater the boost at 1.3khz and the greater the cut at 5khz.  Assuming that the 8A has impedance dips in the bass region and/or peaks in the upper mid to treble region then the higher output impedance of the J3 as compared to the O2 would cause a difference in frequency response which would account for you impressions.


----------



## wakibaki

uchihaitachi said:


> Does high impedance at the source, result in a predictable deviant behaviour for the IEM frequency or, is it erratic?


 
  
 Short answer, yes, its not erratic. It depends primarily on the input impedance of the IEM. Most transducers input impedance varies with frequency. The amplifier output splits between the amplifier internal impedance and the headphone impedance, so different fractions appear at different frequencies. This manifests itself as a variation in output amplitude when a swept tone is input. The variation in voltage seen by the headphone is minimised when the amplifier impedance is low. The input impedance of the IEM is also likely to be complex, i.e. have capacitive and inductive components.
  
 The output impedance also affects something called damping factor, which is a kind of measure of the amplifier's ability to make the diaphragm in the IEM comply with its commands. You can see the necessity for damping when a square wave is input to the transducer and overshoot occurs. Transducers also have internal mechanical damping, so a headphone or speaker can be designed to operate with a quite wide range of damping factors, so although a high damping factor is generally called for, it's not always the case.


----------



## castleofargh

where are the measurements coming from? all from the same place? all RMAA or are they something more reliable? is the FR difference taken at the headphone output or is it an electrical measurement with a load? that changes a lot of things.
 but still they show the usual thing, how something far from exceptional can measure super good with no load (like the pono on stereophile
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





).
  
 now my specific memories of the J3(years back now and I didn't know about impedance's stuff at the time, so take it with a big rock of salt), was that it felt like it had no sub bass without EQ most of my IEMs were close to 16ohm, only my good old super tiny Qjays were going above. it felt slightly warm on most of my IEMs, but I was missing on my rumble addiction. I never knew the J3's impedance, but if it's really around 2ohm as mentioned by Maverick, then I would bet there was something else going on in the low frequencies, outside of the usual impedance variation of the IEM.
 I'm sorry those are only memories and I can't make any claim.
  
 on a side note, I got several cowons and loved them, because most had really low hiss background, making them right to use with most sensitive IEMs without whining too much about hiss like I did on the sony DAPs. a real portable solution. but I did use them all with a lot of EQ and DSPs because the default sound wasn't all that great for me.


----------



## stv014

wakibaki said:


> I don't like the frequency response. It's 40-15000Hz for a start, when I'd prefer to see 20-20,000. If these are the manufacturers figures, I suspect the flatness is a lot worse for the extended range.
> 
> With 32 ohms, a -1.66 dB dip is quite noticeable. 0.1 dB is a perceptible difference.
> 
> I looked up the output impedance, 2 ohms. This is at the very top end of acceptable and values of a fraction of an ohm are achievable. You can see the sensitivity to load in the difference between the loaded and unloaded values, and note how well the Sansa Clip does @ 16 ohms.


 
  
 If the V-Moda is a dynamic model that does not have any major impedance dips (I could not find measurements), then the Cowon may also use ~220 uF output capacitors in addition to the 2 ohms of resistance. That would explain bass roll-off with low impedance headphones and IEMs.


----------



## limpidglitch

castleofargh said:


> where are the measurements coming from? all from the same place? all RMAA or are they something more reliable? is the FR difference taken at the headphone output or is it an electrical measurement with a load? that changes a lot of things.
> but still they show the usual thing, how something far from exceptional can measure super good with no load (like the pono on stereophile
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 They seem to be DFKT's old measurements.


----------



## stv014

limpidglitch said:


> They seem to be DFKT's old measurements.


 
  
 These also confirm the capacitor coupled output on the Cowon.


----------



## castleofargh

limpidglitch said:


> They seem to be DFKT's old measurements.


 
 oh ok, now I feel like I can trust my memories of missing sub bass a little more after looking at the FR into 16 and 32ohm  ^_^.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Thank you all for the informative feedback.
  
 Could the lack of sub-bass account for the 'thin' sound then?


----------



## davidsh

uchihaitachi said:


> Thank you all for the informative feedback.
> 
> Could the lack of sub-bass account for the 'thin' sound then?



Yes, it can indeed


----------



## Toom

Wait a minute! You mean there are still people out there listening to music on a Cowon J3?


----------



## Ruben123

Whats wrong with it


----------



## uchihaitachi

toom said:


> Wait a minute! You mean there are still people out there listening to music on a Cowon J3?


 
 UI, battery life, it's unbeatable.......


----------



## Toom

uchihaitachi said:


> UI, battery life, it's unbeatable.......


 
  
 I used to have a J3. Not bad, but its been superceded by a long way now.
  
 UI? Its a touch screen with basic controls. Any smartphone is better.
  
 Battery life?  Not an issue if you have a charger.
  
 Sound quality - today's smartphones kick the J3's derriere.


----------



## uchihaitachi

My phone sadly has too much hiss and not enough storage.
  
 A touch screen with basic controls, again audiophile daps tend to be large POS bricks ......


----------



## Toom

uchihaitachi said:


> My phone sadly has too much hiss and not enough storage.
> 
> A touch screen with basic controls, again audiophile daps tend to be large POS bricks ......


 
  
 What phone do you have that it hisses and doesnt have expandable storage ability?


----------



## uchihaitachi

HTC one


----------



## Toom

Upgrade to a One M8 or M9.  My M8 sounds ace.


----------



## uchihaitachi

toom said:


> Upgrade to a One M8 or M9.  My M8 sounds ace.


 
 I will definitely check it out!


----------



## anetode

currawong said:


> No. Bigshot's post was reported by a member. The posts in the thread that was locked were reported. When a bunch of regular posters in a large thread are all trashing it, the thread becomes effectively worthless and is better restarted.
> 
> Conspiring to troll (which is what it amounts to) was considered obnoxious and intolerable from as far back in 1994 when I started in online communities. It is just as obnoxious and intolerable now. It sure as hell does not promote science, but does exactly the opposite.


 
 Bigshot, you stand accused of one count of Conspiring to Troll. How do you plead?


----------



## Steve Eddy

anetode said:


> Bigshot, you stand accused of one count of Conspiring to Troll. How do you plead?




It's funny. I've been online a good 10 years longer than Currawong and was there at the dawn of the origin of the term "troll." All I can say is that it has since been misappropriated and turned into a meaningless ad hominem that is hurled by many people at others who they simply don't like or disagree with. 

I saw absolutely nothing of a trolling nature in Bigshot's post. What I saw was just a humorous suggestion as to how to prevent trolls and other Sound Science saboteurs from turning threads into a huge mess forcing them to be locked as has happened so may times before.

se


----------



## Roly1650

steve eddy said:


> It's funny. I've been online a good 10 years longer than Currawong and was there at the dawn of the origin of the term "troll." All I can say is that it has since been misappropriated and turned into a meaningless ad hominem that is hurled by many people at others who they simply don't like or disagree with.
> 
> I saw absolutely nothing of a trolling nature in Bigshot's post. What I saw was just a humorous suggestion as to how to prevent trolls and other Sound Science saboteurs from turning threads into a huge mess forcing them to be locked as has happened so may times before.
> 
> se



I agree, apparently serious thread crapping, (if that's the right term), is not considered worthy of any action by the moderators, but injecting a measure of humor into a farcical situation is verboten. The shame is that it's the good, informative threads that get locked and the amount of subjective blather left in the thread can only serve to confuse a newcomer, opinions are never facts, no matter how forcibly stated, but how would the neophyte know that? So, unfortunately, any worthwhile info is diluted by a crank, (being charitable), with apparent impunity.


----------



## Steve Eddy

roly1650 said:


> I agree, apparently serious thread crapping, (if that's the right term), is not considered worthy of any action by the moderators, but injecting a measure of humor into a farcical situation is verboten. The shame is that it's the good, informative threads that get locked and the amount of subjective blather left in the thread can only serve to confuse a newcomer, opinions are never facts, no matter how forcibly stated, but how would the neophyte know that? So, unfortunately, any worthwhile info is diluted by a crank, (being charitable), with apparent impunity.




Yeah, it's basically just a lazy, "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" approach.

se


----------



## anetode

It appears that bigshot's thumbs up button has been remanded to custody. I eagerly await the bail hearing.


----------



## maverickronin

Whatever happened to habeas corpus!?


----------



## Steve Eddy

anetode said:


> It appears that bigshot's thumbs up button has been remanded to custody. I eagerly await the bail hearing.




Yeah. How. Is the thumbs up idea any different than someone simply saying "ditto" but without having to increase the post count? 

I don't get it.

se


----------



## Roly1650

steve eddy said:


> Yeah, it's basically just a lazy, "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" approach.
> 
> se



Aptly put, my turn with the Gatling, after you, but remember "he's" mine. 

I think there's a definite preference to see the science part of Sound Science remain as soft and "debatable" as possible, some of the subtitles at the top of the page reveal the mindset, imo.


----------



## castleofargh

I'm with you guys, but it's useless to argue about moderation on the web. it just is.
 all I can suggest is to be as nasty as some, and report the guys you don't like as soon as you can somehow interpret a post as being an attack toward a member. if you can seem offended, it's even better.
 you all know by now that a post isn't judge by the truth of its content, it's judge for "disturbing peace in ponyville". so if you guys want to act, use the tools provided.
  
 if that works well, maybe we can get a snitching ranking on the front page too?
  
  
  
  
  
 sarcasm: "hey at least I look like I'm smilling!"


----------



## Steve Eddy

castleofargh said:


> I'm with you guys, but it's useless to argue about moderation on the web. it just is.




Ain't that the truth.

In my 30 years online, that is something that has held across the board. It's as if they feel that if they concede on even the smallest point, the system will suddenly break down into total anarchy. So in order to preserve the system, it's better that some innocents be sacrificed.

se


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> I'm with you guys, but it's useless to argue about moderation on the web. it just is.
> all I can suggest is to be as nasty as some, and report the guys you don't like as soon as you can somehow interpret a post as being an attack toward a member. if you can seem offended, it's even better.
> you all know by now that a post isn't judge by the truth of its content, it's judge for "disturbing peace in ponyville". so if you guys want to act, use the tools provided.




I doubt Currawong or the other head-fi mods are easily influenced by people "seeming" to be offended. Instead, I suspect that they typically judge the "truth" of the content by the posting guidelines.

And in fact, as you recommended, using the "tools provided" is the _only_ option according to the posting guidelines: 

"DON'T reply If someone makes an off-topic, rude or otherwise inappropriate comment, or a post appears to be trolling or spam. Report it by clicking on the red flag and filling in the box explaining what the problem is and let the moderators take care of it. If something is inappropriate or rude, what is the point of giving it more attention by replying to it and/or quoting it?!? If nobody replies to or comments on a trolling or abusive post 100% of the time the person goes away!"

I'm no saint. I don't want to pretend that I haven't got pissed off myself and responded when I shouldn't. But that guideline is sensible advice.


----------



## anetode

cel4145 said:


> I doubt Currawong or the other head-fi mods are easily influenced by people "seeming" to be offended.


 
 You'd be surprised.


----------



## cel4145

anetode said:


> You'd be surprised.




Since this is the objectivist lounge, where's the data?


----------



## BlackbeardBen

anetode said:


> It appears that bigshot's thumbs up button has been remanded to custody. I eagerly await the bail hearing.


 
  
 I had to check for myself, and it's true...  How much is bail on bigshot's thumbs up button?  Can we all pitch in to cover it?  Or is it considered dangerous enough that there will be no bail?


----------



## Steve Eddy

blackbeardben said:


> I had to check for myself, and it's true...  How much is bail on bigshot's thumbs up button?  Can we all pitch in to cover it?  Or is it considered dangerous enough that there will be no bail?




"We don't allow discussion of moderation on the forums. Nothing productive can possibly come from it."

That speaks volumes as to the mindset of the Powers That Be. No different than totalitarian regimes. "We don't allow discussion of the state's actions. Nothing positive can possibly come from it." _Nothing positive can *possibly* come from it._ Think about that for a moment. 

se


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> . . . . Think about that for a moment.




All I could think about was how someone could think it is a good idea to gripe about the moderation policy which says no discussing moderation :blink:


----------



## castleofargh

how this one is still up and we're not all banned, but the claim&myth one just got canned too, is beyond my understanding.
 can't you at least give a reason when you guys lock a topic? as the murder weapon usually gets deleted with the lock, we end up with a topic that looks condemned for no crime.  an alternative minority report, remove the crime but still jail the guys.
  
 there were a lot of interesting things to read in the middle of analogsurviver's Compulsive False Assumption Disorder. plz don't force everybody to stop writing and learning about topics. that just plain sucks!
 I like reading those topics. they're pretty much the only ones where I still learn something from time to time because they can go in very changing directions and talk about subjects I wouldn't even think about. even analogsurv is a good part of the process as he has ideas I know for a fact I would never have ^_^. good or bad, they let us think about it.
 the rest of headfi I mostly browse in case I can help somebody. I don't really expect to learn something outside of where to get the prettiest leather case for a DAP. because everything is so partitioned that you can't really hope to talk about advanced stuff, even related to the product. people will soon come to ush us out telling us to go to the sound science section.
 so plz let our little sound science ghetto topics be.


----------



## Ruben123

I think you're right, this part of the forum needs different moderating.
People will always have different opinions but especially in science this could lead to extremely interesting debates that may look to be offending but are actually very interesting for all parties.


----------



## Toom

Surely someone can build a modbot out of science bits?


----------



## Roly1650

That's the two best threads gone in, what, less than a week, a real shame. *@castleofargh I agree 100% with your sentiments about the value of the two but, i think you're being way too charitable about your friend with CFAD, recently, he's one of the only points of commonality between these two threads. Imo, he'd gone way beyond tedious and should have been on a psychiatrists couch, not posting in Sound Science. Unlike you and I and probably the majority, I don't think he had any interest in being here to learn, in his mind he didn't have that need, because he already knew everything. He just did not know when to shut the hell up, his compulsive need to have the last word was total bollocks and @bigshot called it correctly that both threads were gonna end up being locked, unless he controlled himself. He may not have been a troll, but he was the supreme thread crapper. But like you say the mods are more likely to kill the thread rather than show the offender the door, which isn't helpful or constructive, but, I suspect, suits their aim of the science only ever been debatable rather than conclusive.

So, as I have no desire to read yet another thread about impedance matching of iems to amps or what's the best dap for Sunday use, Sound Science has turned into a bit of a wasteland for me personally and I suspect for others. Great shame.*


----------



## SunTanScanMan

This is all depressing to read. But I wonder whether there is a need to be so defeatist about it.
 I for one have found a great deal of information in the said threads. It has totally changed the way I look at my equipment and the enjoyment of music I get from it - namely contentment and immunity from the constant need to upgrade/tweak/spend etc. Also some of the conversations have been downright hilarious and a source of great entertainment.
  
 At the same time I wish posters would resist the urge to add to the repetitive arguments that do not progress the thread and that risk the wrath of the red flag. The latter statement is of course merely one man's utopian vision, but,
  
*Main point: Why not do as Hollywood do and reboot the threads? E.g. entitled "24bit versus 16bit, the myth exploded!" and "Testing audiophile myths and claims"

 Putting my optimistic idealist hat on again, members could help curate the new threads' content by adding the best bits from the old ones.
 EDIT: Hopefully this will serve as a form of evolving/refining the thread and its contents - even if it get locked again, another reboot and curating will continue the progress.*

 Have I missed any regulations that stop us from doing this?


----------



## RRod

suntanscanman said:


> This is all depressing to read. But I wonder whether there is a need to be so defeatist about it.
> I for one have found a great deal of information in the said threads. It has totally changed the way I look at my equipment and the enjoyment of music I get from it - namely contentment and immunity from the constant need to upgrade/tweak/spend etc. Also some of the conversations have been downright hilarious and a source of great entertainment.
> 
> At the same time I wish posters would resist the urge to add to the repetitive arguments that do not progress the thread and that risk the wrath of the red flag. The latter statement is of course merely one man's utopian vision, but,
> ...


 
  
 Already started for 24-bit:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/761931/the-straight-dope-on-24-bit-recordings
  
 The issue is that the problem still isn't addressed; that is, people are free to come into the new thread and post pages about CD mats. Evidently the solution is to narc on them via the report system, but why is that necessary when mods have already seen them poopoo *2* major threads in a week?


----------



## SunTanScanMan

Thanks for the 24-bit thread link.
  
 I still feel there has to be an 'open-door' policy in any thread.
 If there is the report system, I suggest people use it - either that or posters stop engaging with unproductive arguments. That is the only way I see - not perfect, but the best we got.


----------



## lamode

Ideally a member causing trouble would be suspended from that particular forum for a time. Maybe permanently if they keep re-offending.
 Add me to the list of people not approving of the current moderator(s).


----------



## Roly1650

rrod said:


> Already started for 24-bit:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/761931/the-straight-dope-on-24-bit-recordings
> 
> The issue is that the problem still isn't addressed; that is, people are free to come into the new thread and post pages about CD mats. Evidently the solution is to narc on them via the report system, but why is that necessary when mods have already seen them poopoo *2* major threads in a week?



The problem is with the mods track record, the complaint system is much more likely to result in a locked thread, not the offender being shown the door. It's pretty understandable in a way, the effort required to clean up the thread once someone has crapped it is pretty substantial if it's gone on for more than a few days. Having said that, I am in complete agreement with your post, if the system worked as intended.


----------



## maverickronin

So how does that red flag button even work?  I don't remember ever using it because I don't like the idea of being a narc.
  
 Do you get to type in anything about what you think is wrong with the post or does it just alert all the mods and leave it to them to draw their own conclusions?


----------



## Steve Eddy

You get to choose the reason for the report and to add commentary. Go ahead and click it. There's a cancel option.

se


----------



## Toom

Can you report yourself?


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:


steve eddy said:


> You get to choose the reason for the report and to add commentary. Go ahead and click it. There's a cancel option.
> 
> se


 
  
 Thank you.    I just check on your post.


----------



## castleofargh

toom said:


> Can you report yourself?


 

 not sure that would be productive, but in fact you can see the report button as a pm to modos. you can pretty much talk about anything you want on the subject of the post, even if it's a good thing.
 it's a report, not a kill switch.


----------



## Toom

castleofargh said:


> not sure that would be productive, but in fact you can see the report button as a pm to modos. you can pretty much talk about anything you want on the subject of the post, even if it's a good thing.
> it's a report, not a kill switch.


 
  
 So we could turn it round and praise each other?


----------



## maverickronin

toom said:


> So we could turn it round and praise each other?


 
  
 That's what the thumbs up button is for.


----------



## sonitus mirus

There should be catchy titles lambasting 24-bit music, high resolution files, and all things Pono.  The premise should be that these provide no audible improvement in sound quality and that these are basically consumer scams.  It should be the first threads that people see when they stumble into this forum.  It really does feel like a marketing war with an industry that has an absolutely deplorable history with regards to integrity and moral values over greed.


----------



## Toom

maverickronin said:


> That's what the thumbs up button is for.


 
  
 Oh yes.  I just voted for you.  If you win, remember me.


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> Quote:
> 
> Thank you.    I just check on your post.
> 
> :evil:




You made sure to hit Cancel instead of Submit, right? RIGHT!? 

se


----------



## maverickronin

toom said:


> Oh yes.  I just voted for you.  If you win, remember me.


 
  
 I would have never reached the lofty heights of 7,155 posts without my adoring fans.  How could I ever forget you?
  




  


steve eddy said:


> You made sure to hit Cancel instead of Submit, right? RIGHT!?


 
  
 Probably...
  
 I'll set you up with a proxy or something if you need to hide from Currawong.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> The issue is that the problem still isn't addressed; that is, people are free to come into the new thread and post pages about CD mats. Evidently the solution is to narc on them via the report system, but why is that necessary when mods have already seen them poopoo *2* major threads in a week?




If no one would reply, the guy that did most of the posting in those two threads wouldn't be posting that much. Putting all the blame on him is a very one-sided way of looking at it.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> If no one would reply, the guy that did most of the posting in those two threads wouldn't be posting that much. Putting all the blame on him is a very one-sided way of looking at it.


 
  
 Putting the blame on the person making the non-scientific claims in the sound science forum? I'm okay with that. I myself stopped posting in those threads to him eventually, but I'm not going to hold it against people for trying to make valid arguments against voodoo. After all, people who don't know a lot about audio end up finding these threads; it's good to have reason sprayed in there. What's happened out of all this is two good threads locked and bigshot AWOL (I don't blame him); great outcome.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> Putting the blame on the person making the non-scientific claims in the sound science forum?




It's obvious from reading many of the Sound Science threads that a lot of people like responding to subjectivist claims in order to correct them. 



rrod said:


> I myself stopped posting in those threads to him eventually, but I'm not going to hold it against people for trying to make valid arguments against voodoo. After all, people who don't know a lot about audio end up finding these threads; it's good to have reason sprayed in there. What's happened out of all this is two good threads locked and bigshot AWOL (I don't blame him); great outcome.





Look at the end of the 24 bit thread that got locked:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded/3420

That's not people discussing sound science with vaild arguments. That's more like school yard kids piling on one kid that they don't like what he said.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> It's obvious from reading many of the Sound Science threads that a lot of people like responding to subjectivist claims in order to correct them.
> Look at the end of the 24 bit thread that got locked:
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded/3420
> ...


 
  
 A few pages of bickering in hundred-paged threads is just what happens on the internet. Doesn't bother me none, and things end up righting themselves. But hey, you like how the mods handled it? Fine by me.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> A few pages of bickering in hundred-paged threads is just what happens on the internet. Doesn't bother me none, and things end up righting themselves. But hey, you like how the mods handled it? Fine by me.




I didn't comment on how the mods handled it. 

But there is a big difference between discussing the science and piling on like happened at the end of that 24 bit thread.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> I didn't comment on how the mods handled it.
> 
> But there is a big difference between discussing the science and piling on like happened at the end of that 24 bit thread.


 
  
 The science is the stuff that happens before people realize they are being trolled, at which point things devolve for a page or two. Locking threads for doing what threads of that size normally do seems the wrong way to handle things, esp. when said thread does contain large chunks of good scientific material / argument. But what's done is done, so I guess all we can do now is shepherd the new threads with more vigor, whatever that means.


----------



## Roly1650

cel4145 said:


> If no one would reply, the guy that did most of the posting in those two threads wouldn't be posting that much. Putting all the blame on him is a very one-sided way of looking at it.



We will have to agree to disagree on that one, it was impossible to have any sort of dialogue without him butting in with some bollocks, thread progress was glacial at best. As late as yesterday he came out with some impossible nonsense that was refuted, (correctly), by at least two posters, no more than two posts later he came out with the same twaddle again, you think perhaps that's not frustrating to other contributors? I could understand the eventual resort to childishness and piling on. And he had been warned, more than once that the nature of his posts were likely to cause thread lock. Impossible to get any logical reasoning through to him.
Sad that this guy, single handedly crapped the two most informative threads on the site. I can't find anything positive to say about him, worse than being married to the mother in law, at least she knows when to shut the ****** up and she can cook, sometimes both together.


----------



## sonitus mirus

The audiophile claims and myths thread is included as an important link at the top of the Sound Science forum, and anyone that truly cared to learn about such things has more than enough information to allow them to make a reasoned decision on the subject matter.   My personal discovery was eye-opening, and I am thankful to have had access to this information.  
  
 It may be a long way off, but what I am seeing is an apparent push to implement proprietary new audio formats that can be marketed and sold many times over in various versions that have artificial quality levels imposed.  Having an audio format with strong DRM, as an example, allows for the industry to impair more commonly distributed formats, and to charge a premium for content that sounds correct.  I hope this doesn't work, and it is frustrating to see all of the misinformation being thrown around in a market where there is already plenty of confusion and misunderstandings running rampant.


----------



## cel4145

roly1650 said:


> As late as yesterday he came out with some impossible nonsense that was refuted, (correctly), by at least two posters, no more than two posts later he came out with the same twaddle again, you think perhaps that's not frustrating to other contributors? I could understand the eventual resort to childishness and piling on.




As I said previously, I'm no saint and have done similar things myself. But that doesn't make the behavior the right thing to do or the best choice. And to deny that is to only look at part of the problem.


----------



## uchihaitachi

If two sources manufactured by different companies, yield identical (close to identical) results in objective measurements under the same load etc. Would this mean that they ought to sound the same (not accounting for placebo)?
  
 In a way I am indirectly asking if properly conducted measurements are fully comprehensive? (If done under AES17 guidelines as an example...)


----------



## GrindingThud

Assuming all measurements were the same, yes.


----------



## Steve Eddy

uchihaitachi said:


> If two sources manufactured by different companies, yield identical (close to identical) results in objective measurements under the same load etc. Would this mean that they ought to sound the same (not accounting for placebo)?
> 
> In a way I am indirectly asking if properly conducted measurements are fully comprehensive? (If done under AES17 guidelines as an example...)




Well, there are some components out there with "flaws" that that would alter the signal sufficiently to fall within known audible thresholds. Like some single-ended triode tube amps for example.

However all evidence indicates that it's pretty trivial to design components that are transparent to the point of inaudibility and no one has shown otherwise.

Of course this just covers electronics. All bets are off when it comes to transducers.

se


----------



## uchihaitachi

steve eddy said:


> Well, there are some components out there with "flaws" that that would alter the signal sufficiently to fall within known audible thresholds. Like some single-ended triode tube amps for example.





> *By this do you mean, beyond audible levels, even flaws are irrelevant in general?*





> However all evidence indicates that it's pretty trivial to design components that are transparent to the point of inaudibility and no one has shown otherwise.
> 
> Of course this just covers electronics. All bets are off when it comes to transducers.





> *Could you expand on this, specifically why transducers are a different matter? Thank you!*
> 
> se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Can you try not to nest your replies within a quote? When you do that, and I reply with quote, nothing you wrote appears and I have to copy/paste it from the message itself. Thanks.



uchihaitachi said:


> By this do you mean, beyond audible levels, even flaws are irrelevant in general?




Not at all. Reading your post again, let me rephrase that.

If you have two pieces of gear that have audible flaws, but those flaws are identical for both units, then no, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart, even if the audible flaws were obvious. 



> Could you expand on this, specifically why transducers are a different matter? Thank you!




Because we just haven't been able to get things to behave as linearly when it comes to mechanical apparatus as we have been able to achieve in the electrical domain. And by transducers I'm talking about things like loudspeaker drivers, headphone drivers, phono cartridges, etc. 

se


----------



## BlackbeardBen

A note here:

 Someone (who is long-term active on the forums) ought to reboot the Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths thread.
  
 Before that happens though, here's a question:  Should it pick up from where the old one stopped without copying all of the old links, or should it include those as a sort of super-summary?


----------



## lamode

bufferoverflow said:


> Sponsor Announcements and Deals
> Is what this website is really about - It is a business, not a place to freely discuss science of sound .
> Just the fact that it's forbidden to write DBT in the thread that most needs it proves my point .
> Imagine if the rule was : No mentioning or application of Ohm's Law or the Sampling Theorem in the Sound-Science thread ?
> And it raises some serious questions about certain peoples integrity .


 
  
 It seems clear that you are right but it doesn't have to be this way. I am active on many forums such as cars, photography, etc, (that are also run as businesses) and I haven't seen protectionism like this anywhere else.
  
 Recent example: someone posted about a canjam event in Germany yesterday. Within an hour the post and any quotes of the post were deleted. It wasn't a head-fi event, but the information was of value to European head-fiers.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Head-fi, the North Korea of the forum world.


----------



## Ruben123

I keep laughing while reading tera thread. Wonder how it compares to Clip+, sighted and blind tested...

The tera even needs an amp! Excuse me?! $1000> and not enough? Also it plays wav only. Everyone their taste I guess.


----------



## RRod

lamode said:


> It seems clear that you are right but it doesn't have to be this way. I am active on many forums such as cars, photography, etc, (that are also run as businesses) and I haven't seen protectionism like this anywhere else.
> 
> Recent example: someone posted about a canjam event in Germany yesterday. Within an hour the post and any quotes of the post were deleted. It wasn't a head-fi event, but the information was of value to European head-fiers.


 
  
 I was amazed when people were allowed to call out HDTracks on one of its own threads a few months back. Guess none of us got reported ^_^


----------



## RRod

ruben123 said:


> I keep laughing while reading tera thread. Wonder how it compares to Clip+, sighted and blind tested...
> 
> The tera even needs an amp! Excuse me?! $1000> and not enough? Also it plays wav only. Everyone their taste I guess.


 
  
 But I hear it turns my square waves into tesseract waves the SQ is so gud!


----------



## maverickronin

rrod said:


> But I hear it turns my square waves into tesseract waves the SQ is so gud!


 
  
 It skipped 3d and went straight to 4d?
  
_Impressive._


----------



## Ruben123

I never really heard such $$ stuff but I keep wondering... differences are of course quite small, but HOW can one pretend to hear the ´warmth´ or call what ever you want. Must there be a first reviewer who says such a thing... and then everyone agrees that the DAP has very mild mids, though extremely precise trebles- and keeps repeating that?


----------



## RRod

maverickronin said:


> It skipped 3d and went straight to 4d?
> 
> _Impressive._


 
  
 I tried explaning the 4d Gibbs phenomenon on that thread, but I was told to stop trolling


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> I never really heard such $$ stuff but I keep wondering... differences are of course quite small, but HOW can one pretend to hear the ´warmth´ or call what ever you want. Must there be a first reviewer who says such a thing... and then everyone agrees that the DAP has very mild mids, though extremely precise trebles- and keeps repeating that?


 
 That's the way of the audiophile. Get the flash mob rolling.


----------



## maverickronin

rrod said:


> I tried explaning the 4d Gibbs phenomenon on that thread, but I was told to stop trolling


 
  
 I've had similar reaction tying to explain how basic physics relates to audio reproduction.
  
 For example, telling people to stop worrying about digital audio per se because all energy is already quantized anyway so digital audio is only a matter of degree and not kind. Or when I point out that since the stylus in a phono cartridge and the molecules in a record have finite size it's not really a perfectly continuous "analog" wave like they think.
  
 Most people either don't understand or just get angry.  The only person I ever convinced on the spot with that argument was my brother.


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> I've had similar reaction tying to explain how basic physics relates to audio reproduction.
> 
> For example, telling people to stop worrying about digital audio per se because all energy is already quantized anyway so digital audio is only a matter of degree and not kind. Or when I point out that since the stylus in a phono cartridge and the molecules in a record have finite size it's not really a perfectly continuous "analog" wave like they think.
> 
> Most people either don't understand or just get angry.  The only person I ever convinced on the spot with that argument was my brother.


 
 That's because they learned everything they know about science at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.


----------



## Ruben123

Im so happy I found this thread before spending any big $ at audiophile stuff. Im really satisfied with Galaxy i9000 ($30 used, with voodoo kernel), Sansa Clip+, Have B3P1 and Sennheiser HD439. Headphone stuff only.
  
 Any of you familiar with Superlux headphones? I read sometime something good about them. Might buy one if you recommend them too.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Im so happy I found this thread before spending any big $ at audiophile stuff. Im really satisfied with Galaxy i9000 ($30 used, with voodoo kernel), Sansa Clip+, Have B3P1 and Sennheiser HD439. Headphone stuff only.
> 
> Any of you familiar with Superlux headphones? I read sometime something good about them. Might buy one if you recommend them too.


 
 HD600's are an icon in audiophile headphones, here's a deal at $239.
  
http://www.fatwallet.com/Adorama-coupons/sennheiser-hd600-audiophile-dynamic-stereo-headphone/2681237-3


----------



## Ruben123

stand said:


> HD600's are an icon in audiophile headphones, here's a deal at $239.
> 
> http://www.fatwallet.com/Adorama-coupons/sennheiser-hd600-audiophile-dynamic-stereo-headphone/2681237-3


 

 Im more interested in the $50 range, student life's hard ! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (and no I dont drink that often)
 Those Superlux headphones are around $40


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Im more interested in the $50 range, student life's hard !
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 You'll have to do your drinking at frat parties.
 I've also read good things about Superlux but never listened to a pair. Make sure you match the model to what you've read about and temper your expectations.


----------



## bufferoverflow

Here is an example of just how harmful and reality-detached the subjectivist drivel can be, from the comments-section of a Danish tabloid .
 The articles head-line translates to : *"The Vinyl that refused to die"*
  
  


> Original Danish text :
> Du har højst sandsynligt et Lortify abonnement! (og nok højst sandsynligt et freemium abonnement)
> Det er 16bit 44 khz
> En vinyl i dag er 24bit 96 khz
> ...


 
 http://ekstrabladet.dk/musik/dkmusiknyt/vinylen-der-naegtede-at-doe/5522267#comment=7746450
  
 It just goes on and on, a few poor schmuchs have tried to tell it like it really is and guess what ?
 Vinyl has a broader soundstage, it's a fact! - And the needle-noise is "de-stressing" and adds "warmth" .
  
 Frankly, I'd rather debate evolution with some Amish-dude than have to listen to all the subjecto-drivel ..


----------



## Toom

ruben123 said:


> I keep laughing while reading tera thread. Wonder how it compares to Clip+, sighted and blind tested...
> 
> The tera even needs an amp! Excuse me?! $1000> and not enough? Also it plays wav only. Everyone their taste I guess.


 
  
 I can only assume that thread and the product and the guy behind it is an elaborate dadaist prank.
  
 Or - far more terrifying a thought -  have people genuinely paid up to €3360 (for such is its current price by the looks of it)?
  
 I would love to read an objective break down of the device - does such a thing exist?


----------



## Ruben123

Let me clarify I first THOUGHT that is was a joke, from a funny guy and when you actually ordered one, you would get a message like "fool, this device does not exist and youve fallen in the audiophile more expensive is better black hole". BUT IT IS NOT.
 Wow.
  
 And no I could not find a review of it on a site without ads. (= subjective)


----------



## maverickronin

ruben123 said:


> Im so happy I found this thread before spending any big $ at audiophile stuff. Im really satisfied with Galaxy i9000 ($30 used, with voodoo kernel), Sansa Clip+, Have B3P1 and Sennheiser HD439. Headphone stuff only.
> 
> Any of you familiar with Superlux headphones? I read sometime something good about them. Might buy one if you recommend them too.


 
  
 Headphones are a lot more personal than the rest of the associated audio gear so it's harder to make a recommendation.  Headphones are full of far more compromises than amps, DACs, or DAPs and given differences in anatomy between different users and the inherent unnaturalness of listening to recording mixed for stereo speakers over headphones I don't believe it's possible to even construct a theoretical model of a perfect headphone.
  
 I've never heard them, but Tyll at Innerfidelity has measurements of the Superlux 668B and 681 along with your current Sennhesier HD439.  The most obvious difference is that the two Supeluxes have a lot more treble than you Senns which may or may not be what you're looking for.  The Senns seem kinda dark anyway so I'd say the Sperluxes are closer to neutral in that regard.  Less obvious but even more important for some people would be the sharper ringing on the square waves of the two Superluxes (especially the 668B) which often indicates driver ringing in the treble region which can be fatiguing to many people.  OTOH, the 681's frequency response compare very favorably to the electrostatic Stax SR-207s.  The 207s destroy the 681s in the distortion and noise department though.
  
 Overall I'd guess that the 681s would be a better choice than the 668B because of a more neutral frequency response and less driver ringing in the treble region.  Picking between the 681 and the HD439 is a matter of preference though.  The 681s will have a more 'reference' sound but many people will also be fatiguing to listen to for long periods whereas the Senn isn't as neutral and might have as much detail but will probably be easier to listen to for hours on end.
  
 In the end a lot of this is preference.  I put a lot of emphasis on possible harshness or ringing in the treble since that really bothers me and limits my headtime with a 'phone regardless of it's other virtues.  For example, I prefer the HD650 to the HD800 since the 800 has a bit of that kind of treble issue (which the 650 completely lacks) even though the 800 does everything else better.
  
 Also to reiterate, I haven't heard the HD439, 668B, or 681 myself.  I've just outlined the kind of analysis I'd do if I were considering buying them myself and hadn't heard them.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bufferoverflow said:


> Is what this website is really about - It is a business, not a place to freely discuss science of sound .
> Just the fact that it's forbidden to write DBT in the thread that most needs it proves my point .
> Imagine if the rule was : No mentioning or application of Ohm's Law or the Sampling Theorem in the Sound-Science thread ?
> And it raises some serious questions about certain peoples integrity .




I can't say I'm opposed to the DBT-Free Zone policy. I have seen thuggish objectivists use DBT to needlessly harass people who did not deserve such harassment. 

But it should work both ways. So-called "subjectivists" should not be allowed to thread-crap in Sound Science by trying to pass off their subjective experiences as objective reality without backing up any of their claims. This has been a consistent problem where DBT-Free Zones have been implemented and this is what I have problems with.

se


----------



## cel4145

ruben123 said:


> I never really heard such $$ stuff but I keep wondering... differences are of course quite small, but HOW can one pretend to hear the ´warmth´ or call what ever you want. Must there be a first reviewer who says such a thing... and then everyone agrees that the DAP has very mild mids, though extremely precise trebles- and keeps repeating that?




You are right about how it happens, but they probably aren't "pretending." I'm sure they believe it. Expectation bias is a powerful thing to skew sound perception.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> You are right about how it happens, but they probably aren't "pretending." I'm sure they believe it. Expectation bias is a powerful thing to skew sound perception.


 
 Subsequently suggestion is a powerful force over the flash mob.


----------



## Ruben123

But how do they actually "hear" it, is the next Q.
A sharp edged, piano colored dap sounds different from a grey one which is 3x as big, has all sorts of real dials and no screen... 
But how?


----------



## Ruben123

maverickronin said:


> Headphones are a lot more personal than the rest of the associated audio gear so it's harder to make a recommendation.  Headphones are full of far more compromises than amps, DACs, or DAPs and given differences in anatomy between different users and the inherent unnaturalness of listening to recording mixed for stereo speakers over headphones I don't believe it's possible to even construct a theoretical model of a perfect headphone.
> 
> I've never heard them, but Tyll at Innerfidelity has measurements of the Superlux 668B and 681 along with your current Sennhesier HD439.  The most obvious difference is that the two Supeluxes have a lot more treble than you Senns which may or may not be what you're looking for.  The Senns seem kinda dark anyway so I'd say the Sperluxes are closer to neutral in that regard.  Less obvious but even more important for some people would be the sharper ringing on the square waves of the two Superluxes (especially the 668B) which often indicates driver ringing in the treble region which can be fatiguing to many people.  OTOH, the 681's frequency response compare very favorably to the electrostatic Stax SR-207s.  The 207s destroy the 681s in the distortion and noise department though.
> 
> ...




This is actually a great reply. Thanks a lot. As I already have the Havis which should be much better than the price suggests, I'm curious if the superlux is any better. It's around $50 here, compared to $30 in u.s.

Hard decision.


----------



## cel4145

ruben123 said:


> But how do they actually "hear" it, is the next Q.
> A sharp edged, piano colored dap sounds different from a grey one which is 3x as big, has all sorts of real dials and no screen...
> But how?




Simply because they expect to hear a difference. 

As research in psychology has repeatedly illustrated, human perception is flawed and our brain fills in what we expect to perceive (for instance, have you ever seen the McGurk Effect?). This has also been repeatedly demonstrated to be true when it comes to comparing audio equipment that should sound the same. It is the power of suggestion. 

For instance, lots of people believe that they can hear significant differences between lossless audio (e.g. flac or wav), and the same music file then encoded in high bit rate AAC or MP3. But ABX testing where the person doesn't know which file is which has shown that most people can't tell a difference. Try it yourself if you have not: http://lifehacker.com/5903625/mp3-or-lossless-see-if-you-can-hear-the-difference-with-this-test


----------



## bufferoverflow

cel4145 said:


> For instance, lots of people believe that they can hear significant differences between lossless audio (e.g. flac or wav), and the same music file then encoded in high bit rate AAC or MP3. But ABX testing where the person doesn't know which file is which has shown that most people can't tell a difference. Try it yourself if you have not: http://lifehacker.com/5903625/mp3-or-lossless-see-if-you-can-hear-the-difference-with-this-test


 
 The operative word here is 'most' - Because some people CAN reliably hear the difference, leading to the conclusion that there IS in fact a difference .


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bufferoverflow said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > For instance, lots of people believe that they can hear significant differences between lossless audio (e.g. flac or wav), and the same music file then encoded in high bit rate AAC or MP3. But ABX testing where the person doesn't know which file is which has shown that most people can't tell a difference. Try it yourself if you have not: http://lifehacker.com/5903625/mp3-or-lossless-see-if-you-can-hear-the-difference-with-this-test
> ...


 

 Who?
  
 The thing is, you pick a CD with a lot of 'true peaks' above 0db (sometimes +3db or more as I have seen) and you convert it to MP3 320 and you will hear a difference...
  
 rip the CD, lower it to have some headroom... -1db TP, convert it and you wouldn't tell the difference....


----------



## bufferoverflow

No, you don't "pick" anything, you convert the same music to 2 formats .
 Try it with some Bach organ-music .. Or any decent recording of real instruments for that matter .
 Some people CAN reliably tell the difference - There IS a difference in some cases and nullsumming proves it .


----------



## lamode

bufferoverflow said:


> No, you don't "pick" anything, you convert the same music to 2 formats .
> Try it with some Bach organ-music .. Or any decent recording of real instruments for that matter .
> Some people CAN reliably tell the difference - There IS a difference in some cases and nullsumming proves it .


 
  
 Nullsumming (or the failure to null sum) proves that there is a difference but not that the difference is audible.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

bufferoverflow said:


> No, you don't "pick" anything, you convert the same music to 2 formats .
> Try it with some Bach organ-music .. Or any decent recording of real instruments for that matter .
> Some people CAN reliably tell the difference - There IS a difference in some cases and nullsumming proves it .


 

 If you have analogue clipping ( more than 0db TP) you will hear the distortion on the MP3... what the hell nullsumming as to do with it? of course it's different! its an MP3!
 My CD is different than yours... null summing doesn't apply either...
  
*'There IS a difference in some cases'* I have told you in what cases...


----------



## cel4145

bufferoverflow said:


> The operative word here is 'most' - Because some people CAN reliably hear the difference, leading to the conclusion that there IS in fact a difference .




There's always a "difference," whether it's audible to some or none. What's important to Ruben123's questions is whether or not perception of difference is being skewed for an individual by psychological factors (or even equipment configuration), or whether those differences remain audible to a listener when those factors have been eliminated. Who cares, for example, if you can hear a difference between mp3 and flac? That only matters to you. What matters to me is if I can hear a difference.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bufferoverflow said:


> No, you don't "pick" anything, you convert the same music to 2 formats .
> Try it with some Bach organ-music .. Or any decent recording of real instruments for that matter .
> Some people CAN reliably tell the difference - There IS a difference in some cases and nullsumming proves it .


 
  
 If the files are equal with regards to amplitude and phase with exact starting and ending points, I've not seen any reliable evidence to suggest that anyone can tell a difference.  All of the controlled tests that I have read about, and that provide details about how the test was conducted, seem to indicate that it is nearly impossible for anyone to be able to hear a difference.  It is exceedingly rare to find anyone without an agenda of some sort that can pass an ABX test successfully, and even in these personalized and unconfirmed test cases, it is quite possible that the equipment is suspect as even fewer tests have upsampled the lower quality file to be the same format with regards to bit-depth and sample rate.
  
 It's not as if "Scott and I can't tell a difference, but Brian can", which is how it comes across when people claim a difference can be heard by some people.  The differences are exceptionally subtle it would seem, based on those few claims by people that have shown that they are able to hear a difference with these improperly monitored tests.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Has there actually been a single documented case of somebody significantly telling the difference between a 320kbps mp3 to a lossless format?


----------



## RRod

uchihaitachi said:


> Has there actually been a single documented case of somebody significantly telling the difference between a 320kbps mp3 to a lossless format?


 
  
 This guy seemingly can:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/755650/what-does-science-think-i-should-buy-in-the-head-fi-market/405#post_11496984
  
 Though my current attitude towards ABX is that one should do it for ones-self, and never trust online results.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

rrod said:


> uchihaitachi said:
> 
> 
> > Has there actually been a single documented case of somebody significantly telling the difference between a 320kbps mp3 to a lossless format?
> ...


 

 ...skep
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





tic


----------



## uchihaitachi

rrod said:


> This guy seemingly can:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/755650/what-does-science-think-i-should-buy-in-the-head-fi-market/405#post_11496984
> 
> Though my current attitude towards ABX is that one should do it for ones-self, and never trust online results.


 
  Will need to test that out for myself later...
  
 We may have stumbled upon the first X-Man...


----------



## limpidglitch

sonitus mirus said:


> If the files are equal with regards to amplitude and phase with exact starting and ending points, I've not seen any reliable evidence to suggest that anyone can tell a difference.  All of the controlled tests that I have read about, and that provide details about how the test was conducted, seem to indicate that it is nearly impossible for anyone to be able to hear a difference.  It is exceedingly rare to find anyone without an agenda of some sort that can pass an ABX test successfully, and even in these personalized and unconfirmed test cases, it is quite possible that the equipment is suspect as even fewer tests have upsampled the lower quality file to be the same format with regards to bit-depth and sample rate.
> 
> It's not as if "Scott and I can't tell a difference, but Brian can", which is how it comes across when people claim a difference can be heard by some people.  The differences are exceptionally subtle it would seem, based on those few claims by people that have shown that they are able to hear a difference with these improperly monitored tests.


 
  
 I have no reason to doubt /mnt over on HA f.ex.
 Naturally, the fact that I can't hear a difference makes me harder to convince, but it would be supremely naïve to expect no-one to be able to do it just because of that.


----------



## dprimary

How did it get decided that high bit rate MP3 has an inaudible difference to uncompressed PCM? When have the people that wrote the codec's ever claimed that? There is not suppose to be an inaudible difference. Is it really  good? yes. Is there a night and day difference? no. Is there case's where there is night and day differences? maybe.
 The maybe's is where I want to test things. But is not going to happen overnight, it has to be controlled as possible, single variable when possible. Has to be repeatable and replicated.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dprimary said:


> How did it get decided that high bit rate MP3 has an inaudible difference to uncompressed PCM? When have the people that wrote the codec's ever claimed that?




I know the person who developed the codec. I'll ask him.

What are we considering as high bitrate? 320kbps?

se


----------



## BlackbeardBen

dprimary said:


> How did it get decided that high bit rate MP3 has an inaudible difference to uncompressed PCM? When have the people that wrote the codec's ever claimed that? There is not suppose to be an inaudible difference. Is it really  good? yes. Is there a night and day difference? no. Is there case's where there is night and day differences? maybe.
> The maybe's is where I want to test things. But is not going to happen overnight, it has to be controlled as possible, single variable when possible. Has to be repeatable and replicated.


 
  
 That's what double blind ABX testing in Foobar2000 (or a similar ABX generator) is for.
  
 There are tons of posted test results on the net, with all sorts of test parameters, if you want to read about tests others have done.  Or, you can perform tests yourself, as many here (myself included) have done.  There are also websites that provide the files, some even have their own comparator for you.
  
 I don't have the links right at my fingertips at the moment, but they're out there.  There's plenty of good guides and other information out there.
  
 Personally, I rip my CDs losslessly with EAC, and convert to LAME V0 mp3 files for portable use.  Previous ABX testing of such files I've done tells me that any difference isn't worth my time to try hear any more.  I can't do it for anything but killer samples posted on Hydrogen Audio.  Perhaps slightly more revealing equipment may reveal the changes, but I'm not concerned about that until I have such.
  
 Oh, and as Steve is alluding to, the whole idea is for the codec to try to only eliminate what you can't hear.  Obviously as the file bit rate goes up, the codec is able to do a better job of that.


----------



## Steve Eddy

blackbeardben said:


> That's what double blind ABX testing in Foobar2000 (or a similar ABX generator) is for.




I'm told that it's cheatable. So if it's used, it would have to be used under tight supervision.

se


----------



## limpidglitch

dprimary said:


> How did it get decided that high bit rate MP3 has an inaudible difference to uncompressed PCM? When have the people that wrote the codec's ever claimed that? There is not suppose to be an inaudible difference. Is it really  good? yes. Is there a night and day difference? no. Is there case's where there is night and day differences? maybe.
> The maybe's is where I want to test things. But is not going to happen overnight, it has to be controlled as possible, single variable when possible. Has to be repeatable and replicated.


 
  
 You're absolutely right, of course. I think people just gets a little over excited and jumps to conclusions based on insufficient data.
 "Killer samples" is one thing, but even beyond that the phenomenon is well known and documented.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

steve eddy said:


> I'm told that it's cheatable. So if it's used, it would have to be used under tight supervision.
> 
> se


 
  
 Yes, it is cheatable.  Fortunately, for one's own personal use that isn't a very important flaw.
  
 It would be relatively simple for a proctor to supervise its use in a formal test setting, though.  But that does mean supervision, which is always more work than none.


----------



## Steve Eddy

blackbeardben said:


> Yes, it is cheatable.  Fortunately, for one's own personal use that isn't a very important flaw.
> 
> It would be relatively simple for a proctor to supervise its use in a formal test setting, though.  But that does mean supervision, which is always more work than none.




Yup. But if you want meant full results, it takes some work.

se


----------



## castleofargh

the fact that people fail the abx isn't proof that it's impossible to pass it. that much is sure, anybody who bothered to try and understand abx will acknowledge that.
 but we also know a lot about statistics, and we can reliably use stats for what they are. when 50000people fail a test, and 1 comes telling he passed, you know it's possible, but you also have legitimate right to doubt the procedure and ask to know more.
 because overly unfavorable odds start to make for something close to a rule.
  
 from what I've tried and seen on the web, a mp3@320 is strictly identical to a 16/44 from 0 to mostly about -60db. (a few years back I uses to invert one track in audacity and then mix them and look at the spectra stuff. but I never really knew if it was a valid way to do it?).
 anyway everybody can take a song in foobar, play it at his usual loudness with foobar volume maxed out, then lower the volume in foobar by 60db. it's no extraordinarily involving experience and it tells a lot about what differences we're actually talking about.
 and to add to that, there is the masking effect, as the music playing will cleverly cover those -60db and below differences almost at all time. that's most of the work done with the mp3, to know where it can cut without us noticing because something will be masking the sound anyway at that moment.
  
 so my opinion, from doing a good deal of mp3@320 vs lossless ABX myself, is that it is possible to succeed one, as long as you know what you're looking for, and only replay the same exact passage on the very song that has something audible. 
 if a guy can do it with many kinds of songs on almost any passage with relative accuracy, then I'm very very confident that he converted the file badly. it may have some clipping because the mp3 is too close to 0db. or the guy is a noob and just used 2 different masters instead of converting the file himself(lol the difference is so obvious, mp3 sucks!!!! QED \o/). or he encoded with replay gain ^_^...
 or simply that his sound system sucks at converting mp3 back to pcm( I experienced that myself with the fiio X3 on the first firmware). but I wouldn't believe the mp3 tech itself could be the reason for obvious audible differences frequent enough to be noticeable without a test. so for me, anybody telling something like "I don't need an ABX to tell that lossless sounds better" is wrong!(pick a reason: liar, ignorance, placebo) that much I don't need to leave to statistics.
  
  
  
 obviously me saying this for "loud" -60db differences, can tell you a lot about what I think of people pretending that they hear a "better" sound from 24/96 compared to 16/44... again it can happen, no doubt about it, for pretty much the same reasons as above. the encoding messed up, using 2 different masters, and probably the most obvious, any sound system that actually struggles with one of the format, like ... would distort in the audible range because of too much ultrasounds or whatever.
  
 and so just like with cables, my opinion is that the bad users and bad device choices make up for most of the "I can hear all the betterness, and so could my wife in the kitchen". the rest being placebo. and I'm still looking for the guys the ESS people talked about who can perceive -100db changes in sound. I'm ready to believe they exist, but where are they? if I was one of those guys I would be on TV and make showy demonstrations for the highres advertising. big bucks, big celebrity, how cool would that be!!!!! sadly I'm not one of the chosen few hifi people.


----------



## StanD

We can hear up to 32 bits. We use a wireless lossless interface.


----------



## Toom

How many people have got part way through one of these DBT or ABX things and then had an epiphany and thought "***** it, I need to get a life", turned their computer off, sold all their ridiculously expensive gear and lived happily ever after with their retro-stylee MP3 player and lowly 16 bit recordings?
  
 I would love to read a collection of such stories from survivors of the affliction called audiophilia - it could be the feel-good smash of the summer.   Like Eat Pray Love but with much less hair and far more body odour.


----------



## RRod

steve eddy said:


> I'm told that it's cheatable. So if it's used, it would have to be used under tight supervision.
> 
> se


 
  
 This is my issue with online results. It's hard to give sporadic test-passers the benefit of the doubt when a) it's so easy to cheat when unsupervised and b) I have no idea what they're hearing in real music samples, since I can't pass the test myself on real music.
  
 Here's the two samples of a recent positive case (mp3 vs hi-res) here on the science forum:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwmVtb5IwniEczQ1Q2RNTmFnRmc/view?usp=sharing
  
 Torturing myself through 20 trials of quick switching this stuff makes it really hard to believe someone could differentiate the samples but I also know that, hey, the differences are in the audible spectrum, so anything is possible.


----------



## maverickronin

blackbeardben said:


> Yes, it is cheatable.  Fortunately, for one's own personal use that isn't a very important flaw.
> 
> It would be relatively simple for a proctor to supervise its use in a formal test setting, though.  But that does mean supervision, which is always more work than none.


 
  
 So how is the ABX plugin cheatable?
  
 It's pretty easy to fake screenshots and if someone posts .wav's that were converted from different bitrate lossy codecs you can usually rank the original bitrates by converting them to FLAC or something and see which ones are most compressable.
  
 Is that what you mean or is it something else?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

maverickronin said:


> blackbeardben said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it is cheatable.  Fortunately, for one's own personal use that isn't a very important flaw.
> ...




I could put this behind foobar and its abx plugin:


That'd give me bat ears basically listening to nothing but the HF content that mp3 assumes is inaudible under normal listening circumstances. Pretty sure I'd 10/10 every mp3 ABX test this way if I could still hear above 16kHz


----------



## maverickronin

joe bloggs said:


> That'd give me bat ears basically listening to nothing but the HF content that mp3 assumes is inaudible under normal listening circumstances. Pretty sure I'd 10/10 every mp3 ABX test this way if I could still hear above 16kHz


 
  
 LOL!  I should have thought of that!
  
 Gonna give that a try later today.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I'd put in an offer to help moderate the sound science subforum... thought it was a pretty long stretch myself but you never know.  One of the reasons given for (what I presume is, for now) my rejection was that "and, being a sponsor, I'm sure the science guys would just LOVE you (not)".

So--what would you guys say to that? Would you have trusted Joe Bloggs not to stamp out all dissenting opinion threatening the portable HiFi status quo represented by FiiO et al?  Or would Joe Bloggs have bent over backwards in over-lenience of the quacks at Science, putting all our livelihoods in jeopardy? :eek: Or would Joe's personal viewpoint and official job position have struck a nice balance cancelling out each other to produce the perfectly impartial Sound Science mod for head-fi?


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> I could put this behind foobar and its abx plugin:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 That has no basis in reality because you can never even begin to hear this difference when listening to the music in total. Despite many claims, few people can hear above 16 kHz and there isn't all that much real/meaningful musical content/timbre up there.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > That'd give me bat ears basically listening to nothing but the HF content that mp3 assumes is inaudible under normal listening circumstances. Pretty sure I'd 10/10 every mp3 ABX test this way if I could still hear above 16kHz
> ...




That's why we were discussing this under the context of "cheating in an ABX test" (the question was "how could one cheat an ABX test other than by falsifying the results table?")


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> That's why we were discussing this under the context of "cheating in an ABX test" (the question was "how could one cheat an ABX test other than by falsifying the results table?")


 
 Wiseguy.
 How about the smartarses that think the E12 or E18 is dark, despite having a flat FR? One person blurts out something silly and once it hits the forum flash mob it takes on a life of its own.


----------



## limpidglitch

joe bloggs said:


> I'd put in an offer to help moderate the sound science subforum... thought it was a pretty long stretch myself but you never know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'll support your candidacy (If you can fix me up with an X3 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). At least it's not Synergistic Research or something like that.

 Quite honestly, I think you seem a decent, well grounded guy. The same goes for FiiO as well, in so far as that's possible for a company.


----------



## maverickronin

joe bloggs said:


> I'd put in an offer to help moderate the sound science subforum... thought it was a pretty long stretch myself but you never know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  


limpidglitch said:


> I'll support your candidacy (If you can fix me up with an X3
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think that might work pretty well, but probably wouldn't be allowed either.  The fact that Fiio is comparatively short on flowery language and buzzword compliance might be seen as a conflict of interest since putting forward the the sound science side of the argument as true (even if it actually is...) would be an indirect endorsement of Fiio.
  
 Of course such perceived conflicts of interest are nothing new here, but I'm not sure we'd get away with it here in the back up the bus...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > That's why we were discussing this under the context of "cheating in an ABX test" (the question was "how could one cheat an ABX test other than by falsifying the results table?")
> ...




I have to admit that there's more to how an amp sounds than how it measures going into a line load. The low output impedance and use of smart protection circuits in place of coupling capacitors for DC protection are both objectively sound features, but
-High OI tends to boost treble in a lot of BA IEMs
-Coupling capacitors definitely reduces bass going into any low-impedance earphones

The result is that some underengineered headphone output with high output impedance and coupling capacitance can tend to sound more "detailed" or "bright" than a FiiO by virtue of outputting more treble into most headphone loads.


----------



## castleofargh

joe bloggs said:


> I'd put in an offer to help moderate the sound science subforum... thought it was a pretty long stretch myself but you never know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 you certainly have my vote. humans are only humans and I never expected any moderator to be perfect. but if we could get at times a little more than just anti offending actions, I'm sure it could do some good.


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> I have to admit that there's more to how an amp sounds than how it measures going into a line load. The low output impedance and use of smart protection circuits in place of coupling capacitors for DC protection are both objectively sound features, but
> -High OI tends to boost treble in a lot of BA IEMs
> -Coupling capacitors definitely reduces bass going into any low-impedance earphones
> 
> The result is that some underengineered headphone output with high output impedance and coupling capacitance can tend to sound more "detailed" or "bright" than a FiiO by virtue of outputting more treble into most headphone loads.


 
 Use larger value caps and ones that can carry power without becoming non-linear. I prefer DC coupling anyway and buy that type of amps..
 The affect of high OI is best determined by the impedance curve of the can/IEM. Sometimes it can affect bass such as certain Sennheiser cans that have high impedance humps in the mid bass, etc. I don't buy funky amps. I have an E12 and E18, all good, great values in portable kit. Keep up the good work.


----------



## castleofargh

stand said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > I have to admit that there's more to how an amp sounds than how it measures going into a line load. The low output impedance and use of smart protection circuits in place of coupling capacitors for DC protection are both objectively sound features, but
> ...


 

 most BA armatures tend to have impedance rising like mad at some point in the trebles. I wouldn't make it a 100% thing because I didn't look all that much into it, but it's like that for most.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dprimary said:


> How did it get decided that high bit rate MP3 has an inaudible difference to uncompressed PCM? When have the people that wrote the codec's ever claimed that?




Ok, from the horse's mouth:

"I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if something on the order of castinets/bells wouldn't do it.

The nonuniform quantizer is a dog at high rates, and the block switching isn't short enough to avoid pre-echo on a stressful signal with attacks."

se


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> most BA armatures tend to have impedance rising like mad at some point in the trebles. I wouldn't make it a 100% thing because I didn't look all that much into it, but it's like that for most.


 
 And who is going to use a BA IEM that has a low impedance in the mid and low end with an amp that has a high output impedance? Certainly not me.  Use an amp with a low output impedance, which is common, and no problem.


----------



## RRod

steve eddy said:


> Ok, from the horse's mouth:
> 
> "I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if something on the order of castinets/bells wouldn't do it.
> 
> ...


 
  
 That makes sense, and it's also why my mind twitches a bit when people show positives on something like a choral track by hearing a difference in the reverb. It just doesn't seem to be where you're supposed to hear differences in these comparisons.


----------



## maverickronin

stand said:


> And who is going to use a BA IEM that has a low impedance in the mid and low end with an amp that has a high output impedance? Certainly not me.  Use an amp with a low output impedance, which is common, and no problem.


 
   


steve eddy said:


> Welcome to bizarre world of HeadFi.


 

  
  
 It's more common than you'd think...


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> It's more common than you'd think...


 
 Bad move.


----------



## Steve Eddy

rrod said:


> That makes sense, and it's also why my mind twitches a bit when people show positives on something like a choral track by hearing a difference in the reverb. It just doesn't seem to be where you're supposed to hear differences in these comparisons.




Exactly. And no one would know better than jj where the weaknesses are. Extensive blind testing was carried out in the development of the codec.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Exactly. And no one would know better than jj where the weaknesses are. Extensive blind testing was carried out in the development of the codec.
> 
> se


 
 "Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of the codec?"


----------



## anetode

cel4145 said:


> Since this is the objectivist lounge, where's the data?


 

 This data set is kept confidential by Head-Fi, though I have a fine collection of anecdotes. Unfortunately we can't discuss either one according to the forum rules.
  


joe bloggs said:


> I'd put in an offer to help moderate the sound science subforum... thought it was a pretty long stretch myself but you never know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 You don't have the requisite ninja training and Curra is not currently accepting any new students


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> "Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of the codec?"




"The jj knows."

I remember an old Flip Wilson album we had back in the '60s. He did a take on that with the punchline being "The Shadow do." 

Here come the judge... Here come the judge... Here come the judge...

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> "The jj knows."
> 
> I remember an old Flip Wilson album we had back in the '60s. He did a take on that with the punchline being "The Shadow do."
> 
> ...


 
 Sometimes I'd like to set Geraldine's boyfriend loose on some of the audio mythologists.


----------



## dprimary

steve eddy said:


> I know the person who developed the codec. I'll ask him.
> 
> What are we considering as high bitrate? 320kbps?
> 
> se


 
 256 to 320kbs would be the high bit rate. Multiple people developed the codec since they has been a dozen mp3 codec's over the last 20 years. But it would be interesting to know his prospective.


----------



## lamode

castleofargh said:


> the fact that people fail the abx isn't proof that it's impossible to pass it. that much is sure, anybody who bothered to try and understand abx will acknowledge that.
> but we also know a lot about statistics, and we can reliably use stats for what they are. when 50000people fail a test, and 1 comes telling he passed, you know it's possible, but you also have legitimate right to doubt the procedure and ask to know more.


 
  
 That's now how it works. For a given number of 'questions' in an ABX test, there is always a probability of a certain percentage of subjects getting a pass score by purely random chance. For most of the ABX tests we see here, comparing MP3 and lossless, the odds are often in the ballpark of 1%. So out of 50,000 subjects, we would expect around 500 to get a pass score even if they were all picking random answers. The result would not start to become meaningful until a much larger number of subjects passed.


----------



## lamode

joe bloggs said:


> I'd put in an offer to help moderate the sound science subforum...


 
  
 Nothing personal, but a sponsor should never be a mod.


----------



## cjl

lamode said:


> That's now how it works. For a given number of 'questions' in an ABX test, there is always a probability of a certain percentage of subjects getting a pass score by purely random chance. For most of the ABX tests we see here, comparing MP3 and lossless, the odds are often in the ballpark of 1%. So out of 50,000 subjects, we would expect around 500 to get a pass score even if they were all picking random answers. The result would not start to become meaningful until a much larger number of subjects passed.


 
 Alternatively, the person who passed could repeat the test with a stricter criterion - a 20/20 result for example would only have about a 1 in a million chance of occurring by luck, and 30/30 would be about 1 in a billion. A single 30/30 result would be quite convincing, in my opinion...


----------



## lamode

cjl said:


> Alternatively, the person who passed could repeat the test with a stricter criterion - a 20/20 result for example would only have about a 1 in a million chance of occurring by luck, and 30/30 would be about 1 in a billion. A single 30/30 result would be quite convincing, in my opinion...


 
  
 Yes, the 8/10 pass mark that some people here like to use is far too meaningless. Then when some people achieve a pass score (as some inevitably will by pure chance) the audiofools say "See! We told you some people can hear the difference!"
  
 30/30 sounds good to me


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Sometimes I'd like to set Geraldine's boyfriend loose on some of the audio mythologists.




Sic 'em, Killa! 

se


----------



## StanD

Then there are people that can't hear a difference and are willing to admit it.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dprimary said:


> 256 to 320kbs would be the high bit rate. Multiple people developed the codec since they has been a dozen mp3 codec's over the last 20 years. But it would be interesting to know his prospective.




Not sure what you're talking about. There is only the one MP3 standard that I am aware of and it hasn't changed since 1998.

se


----------



## castleofargh

lamode said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > the fact that people fail the abx isn't proof that it's impossible to pass it. that much is sure, anybody who bothered to try and understand abx will acknowledge that.
> ...


 

 I said "when 50000 people fail a test", not "when 50000 try an abx with p=0.01". not to say you're wrong, just that it's not what I was saying ^_^.
 and by saying "you know it's possible", I was pointing at the statistical chances that luck would lead to a positive result. 
 I wasn't arguing that no one guy could ever succeed. just pointing at the idea that we're trying to prove a positive, not a negative. so when we get a positive, we need to at least get the method(number of trials, predetermined number of trials ...)to know how seriously we should take the result.


----------



## MacacoDoSom

stand said:


> Then there are people that can't hear a difference and are willing to admit it.


 

 I can't...


----------



## dprimary

steve eddy said:


> Not sure what you're talking about. There is only the one MP3 standard that I am aware of and it hasn't changed since 1998.
> 
> se


 

 There is the standard, but there is LAME and Fraunhofer versions to start. Then you have things like Xing is it a codec or just an encoder using someone else's codec?


----------



## maverickronin

I was going though the exhibitor list for AXPONA next weekend and found something rather unusual...
  

  
 They're no longer teaching people to fly...
  

  
 but I'm pretty sure it will improve the sound of your system more than $150 power cable though...


----------



## Steve Eddy

dprimary said:


> There is the standard, but there is LAME and Fraunhofer versions to start. Then you have things like Xing is it a codec or just an encoder using someone else's codec?




Those are just encoders which must adhere to the codec's standard, or else they wouldn't be compatible with players (not to mention licensing). There only these two MP3 codec standards, ISO/IEC 11172-3 and ISO/IEC 13818-3. Those standards haven't changed since 1998.

se


----------



## uchihaitachi

FYI he isn't a troll.


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


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


 
 He may not be a troll, but he definitely has an overactive imagination.


----------



## bigshot

Hi Guys
  
 I took a vacation from lunacy for a few days. How's it going? Is the signal to noise below the threshold of tolerance still?
  
 My tax refund came in and I'm thinking of buying an Orthophonic Credenza for my listening room. I plan to get some mikes and try to record the way acoustic phonographs sound in a real world room. Interesting experiment.


----------



## Ruben123

Well take a look at the portable source gear and have a lol (as a comeback from your vacation).
  
 While I never listened to a $1000+ DAP (so no experience, just common sense) I can find a good laugh at the AK240, Sont ZX2 thread etc. People buying a $1200 DAP (while owning a $1100 one) because the other one was too shrill sounding. And so having both AK 240 and 120 ($2500 and $1000 [?]) because one is for pop music and the other for rock.
  
 Why not upgrade your headphones?? At $3k there's some beauties out there ! Really when owning a sufficient DAP and you find it sound harsh, why not buy another headphone at $500-1500 or two or three, that doesnt sound harsh (because the headphones themselves are not harsh sounding though the one they have is).


 Guess I will never get it. The power of expectation is big.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Well take a look at the portable source gear and have a lol (as a comeback from your vacation).
> 
> While I never listened to a $1000+ DAP (so no experience, just common sense) I can find a good laugh at the AK240, Sont ZX2 thread etc. People buying a $1200 DAP (while owning a $1100 one) because the other one was too shrill sounding. And so having both AK 240 and 120 ($2500 and $1000 [?]) because one is for pop music and the other for rock.
> 
> ...


 
 Electronic Viagra for portable listening. I'd get a portable DAC/Amp for my smartphone and call it a day. My phone supports USB Audio. A FiiO E18 is inexpensive and sounds good, as long as one doesn't use Planars one should have enough power for most headphones, barring 600 Ohms.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

stand said:


> ruben123 said:
> 
> 
> > Well take a look at the portable source gear and have a lol (as a comeback from your vacation).
> ...




There are some real digital gremlins that need to be tamed on some mobile phones. Here, check these out:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bcnpd3vezvgpzrl/44s%20perceptual%20sweep%20linear%202015.flac?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8va8i365j2w4guv/48s%20perceptual%20sweep%20linear%202015.flac?dl=0

These are sine sweeps going up from 0 to 22050Hz (for the 44.1kHz file) and 24000Hz (for the 48kHz file) respectively. If these two files sound significantly different on your phone (one of them having warbling tones going up and down in frequency in the last part of the sweep) you have a problem with the sample rate converter on your phone :eek:


----------



## castleofargh

joe bloggs said:


> stand said:
> 
> 
> > ruben123 said:
> ...


 

 wouldn't just converting the songs beforehand into the default rate for the phone solve the problem?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

castleofargh said:


> wouldn't just converting the songs beforehand into the default rate for the phone solve the problem?




What if it's 44.1kHz playback that's bugged? Imagine the hassle converting 90% of your library from 44.1kHz to 48kHz. Some of the source material may even be mp3s or the like :eek: It's enough to make even an objectivist turn up his nose


----------



## lamode

castleofargh said:


> wouldn't just converting the songs beforehand into the default rate for the phone solve the problem?



Assuming you are using a superior SRC algorithm in another app, then yes.


----------



## lamode

joe bloggs said:


> What if it's 44.1kHz playback that's bugged? Imagine the hassle converting 90% of your library from 44.1kHz to 48kHz. Some of the source material may even be mp3s or the like :eek: It's enough to make even an objectivist turn up his nose




Well it would still solve the SRC problem 

Seriously, if the native rate is a problem then no rate will sound good.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

bigshot said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> I took a vacation from lunacy for a few days. How's it going? Is the signal to noise below the threshold of tolerance still?
> 
> My tax refund came in and I'm thinking of buying an Orthophonic Credenza for my listening room. I plan to get some mikes and try to record the way acoustic phonographs sound in a real world room. Interesting experiment.


 

 Where were your previous recordings/conversions done?


----------



## castleofargh

joe bloggs said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > wouldn't just converting the songs beforehand into the default rate for the phone solve the problem?
> ...


 

 yeah that would probably push me to abandon mp3 :'(. but about converting my music, I already do it for my portable stuff with some EQ and DSPs(for non android DAPs), so I don't mind. but obviously getting a phone that works ok doesn't seem bad in the first place ^_^.


----------



## bigshot

ruben123 said:


> While I never listened to a $1000+ DAP


 
  
 I have a $1000+ amp/DAC and it makes absolutely no difference, so I would imagine that a player wouldn't be much different.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> I took a vacation from lunacy for a few days. How's it going? Is the signal to noise below the threshold of tolerance still?
> 
> My tax refund came in and I'm thinking of buying an Orthophonic Credenza for my listening room. I plan to get some mikes and try to record the way acoustic phonographs sound in a real world room. Interesting experiment.




Is that anything lik a moss-covered, three-handle family gredunza? 

se


----------



## bigshot

suntanscanman said:


> Where were your previous recordings/conversions done?


 
  
 I have done electronic transcriptions in the past, but I found it was very difficult to match the quality of of some aspects of acoustic playback using an electrical turntable. I know that a lot of people swear that the best way to transfer acoustic disks is to mike a good phonograph well and get a little room ambience along with it. I want to try that and see if I can get closer quicker that way.
  
 Here is an acoustic record from 1903 that I transferred electrically. This is the best I could come up with using that method... http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/libertybellmarch.mp3
  
 Here is a youtube video of a Credenza https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpprkw2i2Us another good one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvLcJcMuznk
 Notice how there is almost no surface noise and a really nice balance, even through the dinky mike on the guy's camera. The only thing that electronic transcription can do better is bass. The thing that sets the Credenza apart from other phonos is the exponential horn design. At the opening the horn is about 55 square inches.


----------



## cel4145

ruben123 said:


> Well take a look at the portable source gear and have a lol (as a comeback from your vacation).
> 
> While I never listened to a $1000+ DAP (so no experience, just common sense) I can find a good laugh at the AK240, Sont ZX2 thread etc. People buying a $1200 DAP (while owning a $1100 one) because the other one was too shrill sounding. And so having both AK 240 and 120 ($2500 and $1000 [?]) because one is for pop music and the other for rock.
> 
> ...




No doubt. 

It's not just the "power of expectation." It's the addiction to finding a new sound, whether it's significantly better or not. I've seen it very often in threads for new headphones that are the FOTM, and you frequently see people who are buying new headphones (and other equipment) on practically a weekly basis. Expectation bias obviously increases the hype train with any FOTM. But this pursuit is also very much like a drug addiction where people are always looking for that new high because the current high isn't as exciting any more.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> No doubt.
> 
> It's not just the "power of expectation." It's the addiction to finding a new sound, whether it's significantly better or not. I've seen it very often in threads for new headphones that are the FOTM, and you frequently see people who are buying new headphones (and other equipment) on practically a weekly basis. Expectation bias obviously increases the hype train with any FOTM. But this pursuit is also very much like a drug addiction where people are always looking for that new high because the current high isn't as exciting any more.


 
 That high wears off very quickly and the tolerance builds swiftly.


----------



## castleofargh

cel4145 said:


> No doubt.
> 
> It's not just the "power of expectation." It's the addiction to finding a new sound, whether it's significantly better or not. I've seen it very often in threads for new headphones that are the FOTM, and you frequently see people who are buying new headphones (and other equipment) on practically a weekly basis. Expectation bias obviously increases the hype train with any FOTM. But this pursuit is also very much like a drug addiction where people are always looking for that new high because the current high isn't as exciting any more.


 

 exactly, those compulsive buyers are all after the hormonal shots from new stuff. it has no longer anything to do with audio. and the fact that most of them are so exuberant about the new stuff they just got, but still go for something else soon after, is proof that the joy and acclaimed superiority were not actually from the product itself but from the "new toy" effect.
 it's a clear sickness, and I guess all hobbyists contract it on some level. I certainly have to reason with myself when a new cool toy gets out, and accept the idea that if it doesn't solve problems I have on my actual gears, it would be foolish to go for it. but I understand how easy it is to fall prey to the marketing machine. usual reason vs passion fight, and some just suck at controlling themselves.
 with years passing I feel like the more I relied on specs and facts, the less I am tempted by the mere fact of something being new and trendy. before I started to understand specs and care for them, I was buying a lot of crap for no reason. maybe that's just me, but I kind of feel like being more rational and informed about the hobby is a strong weapon against compulsive purchase. pretty sure the hardcore subjectivist buys more on average.
  
 anyway the massive ups and down pushing for a new fix are a symptom of addiction and should be taken seriously.


----------



## Ruben123

bigshot said:


> I have a $1000+ amp/DAC and it makes absolutely no difference, so I would imagine that a player wouldn't be much different.


 

 There's a difference between the sound of a drum and its 0s and 1s, and the sound of a violin or only its frequencies your non audiophile DAP plays. (+ you dont have the golden ears they have... well I think I do have one of the most golden ears here! Mine are relatively young)
 ..........
 I see many in the forums have DAPs or whatever toy plays music that are more expensive than their cans. Usually $200 at max earphones, looking at an increase in SQ for (to call one) the Tera player.


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> exactly, those compulsive buyers are all after the hormonal shots from new stuff. it has no longer anything to do with audio. and the fact that most of them are so exuberant about the new stuff they just got, but still go for something else soon after, is proof that the joy and acclaimed superiority were not actually from the product itself but from the "new toy" effect.
> it's a clear sickness, and I guess all hobbyists contract it on some level. I certainly have to reason with myself when a new cool toy gets out, and accept the idea that if it doesn't solve problems I have on my actual gears, it would be foolish to go for it. but I understand how easy it is to fall prey to the marketing machine. usual reason vs passion fight, and some just suck at controlling themselves.
> with years passing I feel like the more I relied on specs and facts, the less I am tempted by the mere fact of something being new and trendy. before I started to understand specs and care for them, I was buying a lot of crap for no reason. maybe that's just me, but I kind of feel like being more rational and informed about the hobby is a strong weapon against compulsive purchase. pretty sure the hardcore subjectivist buys more on average.
> 
> anyway the massive ups and down pushing for a new fix are a symptom of addiction and should be taken seriously.




+1

I also think it's one major potential cause of upgraditis, but not the only one. I admit. I like to get new gear, and that urge isn't just about the high of the sound. Time for something new just 'cause there is new technology or an improved model. 

So it is an expectation for improved performance, but I believe it gets at a different set of psychological factors than that new aesthetic high addiction. Maybe more compulsion? Other values associated with having new equipment? When it comes to new technology, I feel driven to upgrade my phone, computer, and tablet every couple of years, which is not about an aesthetic type performance increase. It feels more like a tech/gear kind of performance thing. Does that make sense? 

Or maybe it's an urge to collect, for those of us who buy equipment but rarely sell off the old.


----------



## Ruben123

But against my expectations, my Sony Xperia T distorts higher frequencies. I have to find out what it causes: or my earphones distorted because they were that bad, or that good to find out faults in the recordings. I am afraid though the phone itself does it.


----------



## castleofargh

ruben123 said:


> But against my expectations, my Sony Xperia T distorts higher frequencies. I have to find out what it causes: or my earphones distorted because they were that bad, or that good to find out faults in the recordings. I am afraid though the phone itself does it.


 

 cellphones usually don't like low impedance IEMs. with a relatively sensitive 100ohm can, most crap cellphones could actually give very reasonable sound(at least form the specs I've seen, I didn't look into the xperia).


----------



## Ruben123

castleofargh said:


> cellphones usually don't like low impedance IEMs. with a relatively sensitive 100ohm can, most crap cellphones could actually give very reasonable sound(at least form the specs I've seen, I didn't look into the xperia).


 

 And that is because of their high output impedance? - which causes frequency swings at BA or low impedance earphones


----------



## RRod

ruben123 said:


> And that is because of their high output impedance? - which causes frequency swings at BA or low impedance earphones


 
  
 Yes. It would be nice if there were standards for portable stuff, e.g. max 1ohm output impedance and ability to drive 50ohm / 100dB/mW cans to 115dB.


----------



## castleofargh

cel4145 said:


> I also think it's one major potential cause of upgraditis, but not the only one. I admit. I like to get new gear, and that urge isn't just about the high of the sound. Time for something new just 'cause there is new technology or an improved model.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I'm no doctor, but I feel like I can give you a pass on the "intervention" if your compulsive need to get a product comes every other year ^_^.
  
  
  


ruben123 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > cellphones usually don't like low impedance IEMs. with a relatively sensitive 100ohm can, most crap cellphones could actually give very reasonable sound(at least form the specs I've seen, I didn't look into the xperia).
> ...


 

 in part probably, and I guess at some point we can also imagine the IEM distorting a little more from bad damping(but that would depend on the driver's tech, I doubt BA drivers care much about that? but the main reason from what I understand is that those cheap weak amp sections can't really deal with the current needed into a small load. you end up with more noise, more crosstalk, more distortions. most DAPs are like that too, in fact most amps are really happy and good into high impedance loads. but with headphones and IEMs getting lower and lower impedances, it's not going to in the ideal direction.
 to me a good amp gives a better sound into IEMs mainly because of that. as it's rarely a power problem with IEMs.
  
 but obviously the question is always to find out when more is too much and when it's not even audible.


----------



## lamode

bigshot said:


> Here is an acoustic record from 1903 that I transferred electrically. This is the best I could come up with using that method... http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/libertybellmarch.mp3


 
  
 Server seems to be down


----------



## bigshot

might take a second to load before it plays. If your browser won't play MP3s, you can right click on the link and download the linked file to your hard drive


----------



## lamode

bigshot said:


> might take a second to load before it plays. If your browser won't play MP3s, you can right click on the link and download the linked file to your hard drive


 
  
 No, the whole server is down. http://www.vintageip.com is not responding


----------



## bigshot

I'm on Verizon and the server is responding. Perhaps there is a bottleneck between your server and my web host. Try again a little later.


----------



## StanD

lamode said:


> No, the whole server is down. http://www.vintageip.com is not responding


 
 The mp3 played for me.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

bigshot said:


> I have done electronic transcriptions in the past, but I found it was very difficult to match the quality of of some aspects of acoustic playback using an electrical turntable. I know that a lot of people swear that the best way to transfer acoustic disks is to mike a good phonograph well and get a little room ambience along with it. I want to try that and see if I can get closer quicker that way.
> 
> Here is an acoustic record from 1903 that I transferred electrically. This is the best I could come up with using that method... http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/libertybellmarch.mp3
> 
> ...


 

 Yeah that's great quality. Will be interesting to hear what the differences between the transcriptions will be. How you planning to decide on the location of the phonograph and mic(s) in the room?
  
 The Garrard gramophone my dad had briefly was a smaller wooden chest with a lid and a big horn speaker coming out the side. Had to wind it up with a winch. I remember thinking as a kid at the time how loud it was sat right next to it - no volume control. Also the needle-head mechanism had a really satisfying weight to them. Googled the needles and wow they're still selling them, in those small metal tins no less! 
  
 Also that Credenza must weight a tonne


----------



## 150dB

Hey StanD, I like the way you think! I mean, after all that is why the whole Portable DAC scene came about, to enhance your listening expereience on almost any device. Case in point; The E18 FiiO is designed to be compatible with all players, NOT JUST FIIO's. Those buttons on the side? They are even Andriod specific, they work in no other application. Pherpaps FiiO was just showing it's loyalty to all their fans that couldnt use their Andriod device, it was only the iphone's 30-pin connecter that allowed us to by-pass the phones internal amp (saves power life as well), and allow us to takes take our audio sgnal straight from the phones internatal DAC itself. And no worries people, The E18 is amazingly versitle.
Hi Castleofarg, I have to side with Joe Bloggs on this one. You'd simply be running a minor test, that could solve all your problems in a minute. To switch your entire library is a time consuming effort, though I do applaud your thoughts (Joe has given you a key here) This is a perfect test, but please note, they should sound slightly different, but have the same smooth signature all the way up the line, If you hear this warbbling, well theres your problem. lol, Hope this helped


----------



## StanD

150db said:


> Hey StanD, I like the way you think! I mean, after all that is why the whole Portable DAC scene came about, to enhance your listening expereience on almost any device. Case in point; The E18 FiiO is designed to be compatible with all players, NOT JUST FIIO's. Those buttons on the side? They are even Andriod specific, they work in no other application. Pherpaps FiiO was just showing it's loyalty to all their fans that couldnt use their Andriod device, it was only the iphone's 30-pin connecter that allowed us to by-pass the phones internal amp (saves power life as well), and allow us to takes take our audio sgnal straight from the phones internatal DAC itself. And no worries people, The E18 is amazingly versitle.
> :


 
 The newer Lightning CCK allows one to bypass the internal DAC as well, not a LOD from the internal DAC. In my bag of tricks is an iPod Touch 5G which works perfectly with my FiiO E18. The 5G happens to have a very good internal DAC and Amp, only that if one needs more power to drive a Planar or voltage swing for a high impedance can, it may fall short. Then again I use such headphones at home on a desktop kit. Yet somehow I manage to use the E18 on the road or at the office. So do you really listen at 150 dB?


----------



## Ruben123

Guys Ive found a new home here in Science! Never going back to the place where power cables make differences, after I had some discussion going in the Pono thread (stupid from me to even post there). I dont have the experience with expensive stuff SO anything about physics I say is false because I never heard golden ears' DAPs and stuff. What ever.
  
 Is it so strange to let people know that spending another $$ on a $$ audio player for a balanced cable (-or even on the player itself if they already HAVE a good DAP-) because the normal SQ is up par with an iphone but with BALANCED CABLES it makes a night and day difference, is actually nonsense? To help a guy who said he tested Pono and iPhone (and iPod and Sansa Clip) next to each other for some time and heard no difference and became snowed in because he is wrong, for he is right??
  
 It's like everyone's blind and has the need to spend more and more because others say you HAVE TO spend more to get that little bit (or night and day) extra SQ, for only a few hundreds of extra cash?
  
 ''You should buy this device because wow never heard such a thing. OK now you have it you need to upgrade it because as is, the player is nothing special but after that upgrade... Oh now you have upgraded, there's another player/amp/cable that is much better, get one!''
  
 I respect @castleofargh for the patience he has with those people.


----------



## bigshot

To some people sound quality isn't really the goal, even if they say it is. Knowing that they spent a lot of money for the best sound quality is better than having the best sound quality for very little money. That shows you what the real goal is. It's consumerism and conspicuous consumption.


----------



## davidsh

Suffice to say discovering sound science was an eye opener to me


----------



## Steve Eddy

ruben123 said:


> Guys Ive found a new home here in Science!




Welcome to the ghetto. 


[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/oKKMdmPBWRk[/VIDEO]

se


----------



## StanD

@Ruben123 Some people purchase their Tin Golden Ears. Mostly make believe and the need to feel important.


----------



## Ruben123

davidsh said:


> Suffice to say discovering sound science was an eye opener to me


 

 So it is for me.


----------



## Ruben123

Thanks guys 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 For the time I daily looked in those forums Ive seen poor students like me being recommended to buy stuff they dont need because of the night and day differences. Back then I believed them, but now i can get really mad. It is so unfair, first recommending people stuff they dont need and then that gear actually does not make that much of a difference, if at all. And then recommending another headphone or preferably DAP/DAC/amp for being able to hear the pure golden SQ only they hear.


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> Thanks guys
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 They purchase their importance, unfortunately all too often they use other people's money.


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> Welcome to the ghetto.


 
  
 It's more like banishment on a desert island. I was here when the Sound Science forum was created. It was specifically created to get those of us who talked about measurements and controlled listening tests out of the cable forum. Someone didn't like cables and tweaks being held to objective standards and decided that the best way to protect the sacred cow was to create a banishment group which would be the only place in Head-Fi where the dreaded letters DBT could be uttered. Then they banned DBT from the rest of the site. That made me considerably less interested in the rest of the site with one fell swoop. I like it here in Sound Science though, I think we have a good group of people here for the most part.


----------



## Ruben123

bigshot said:


> It's more like banishment on a desert island. I was here when the Sound Science forum was created. It was specifically created to get those of us who talked about measurements and controlled listening tests out of the cable forum. Someone didn't like cables and tweaks being held to objective standards and decided that the best way to protect the sacred cow was to create a banishment group which would be the only place in Head-Fi where the dreaded letters DBT could be uttered. Then they banned DBT from the rest of the site. That made me considerably less interested in the rest of the site with one fell swoop. I like it here in Sound Science though, I think we have a good group of people here for the most part.


 

 It feels like that, because we're not allowed to talk about science in other forums, because of the debates? It feels more like protecting people than discussing because that's my main reason I sometimes posted over there (protecting that is). Or is it the sponsors that otherwise stop sponsoring this site... I have no clue


----------



## bigshot

That's exactl


ruben123 said:


> It feels more like protecting people than discussing because that's my main reason I sometimes posted over there (protecting that is). Or is it the sponsors that otherwise stop sponsoring this site... I have no clue


 
  
 It's all of that. But the good part of it is that we have created a pretty nice community within a community here in Sound Science. We constantly deal with dolts who wander in from the outside who aren't aware of what we do here, but as long as folks like you find your way here, it's OK. Let the clueless be protected from finding a clue if that is the way it has to be. We can help each other here.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> It's more like banishment on a desert island. I was here when the Sound Science forum was created. It was specifically created to get those of us who talked about measurements and controlled listening tests out of the cable forum. Someone didn't like cables and tweaks being held to objective standards and decided that the best way to protect the sacred cow was to create a banishment group which would be the only place in Head-Fi where the dreaded letters DBT could be uttered. Then they banned DBT from the rest of the site. That made me considerably less interested in the rest of the site with one fell swoop. I like it here in Sound Science though, I think we have a good group of people here for the most part.




Yeah. They basically just duplicated the Audio Asylum model. Only difference is they called it Propeller Head Plaza on AA.

se


----------



## bigshot

It's pretty clear we aren't loved by the powers that be, but we sure are tenacious!


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> It feels like that, because we're not allowed to talk about science in other forums, because of the debates? It feels more like protecting people than discussing because that's my main reason I sometimes posted over there (protecting that is). Or is it the sponsors that otherwise stop sponsoring this site... I have no clue


 
 I manage to sneak specs and thinking into the _threads_, carefully. The truth is out there, in the Science forum.


----------



## RRod

ruben123 said:


> It's like everyone's blind and has the need to spend more and more because others say you HAVE TO spend more to get that little bit (or night and day) extra SQ, for only a few hundreds of extra cash?
> 
> ''You should buy this device because wow never heard such a thing. OK now you have it you need to upgrade it because as is, the player is nothing special but after that upgrade... Oh now you have upgraded, there's another player/amp/cable that is much better, get one!''
> 
> I respect @castleofargh for the patience he has with those people.


 
  
 When I decided to buy my first "big boy" setup, I found this site and of course did the obvious thing: search reviews and big threads. Then I bought a Magni and realized it did all I needed for a fraction of the cost, and decided to learn the real dope on this stuff. Needless to say, I've found that pretty much every other section is basically full of it. It's gotten to where I almost don't want to bother on another sub-forum, even if there is really bad info going around, because my response will simply get swamped. Like right now, the whole PM-3 thread is about balanced cables. The headphone is 102dB@1mw…


----------



## Steve Eddy

The PM-3 is ortho, no? Why would DAP output impedance be the concern? 

se


----------



## bigshot

Another thing I've noticed is that the "expert" audiophiles in the other forums have a LOT of their own ego invested into their opinions. They aren't interested in arguing facts on point and they don't like being contradicted. If you question them on an opinion and provide information to make your point, they inevitably resort to ad hominem attacks. I usually take that as a tacit admission that they are unable to support their argument and have a sense of humor about it. But the humor makes them even more infuriated. So I just keep my distance and you know what if they can't take a joke!
  
 One thing is for sure, audiophiles make for great poker players... they know how to bluff!


----------



## cel4145

ruben123 said:


> It feels like that, because we're not allowed to talk about science in other forums, because of the debates? It feels more like protecting people than discussing because that's my main reason I sometimes posted over there (protecting that is). Or is it the sponsors that otherwise stop sponsoring this site... I have no clue




I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure you are allowed to bring up a scientific perspective on the other forums. Just the cable forums is DBT discussion free. But I think the goal is if you want to discuss the science and have it turn into debates, then bring it here. Makes sense, too, because there can be dedicated threads here about specific science topics that people can be pointed to for reading and/or more discussion. So better organization of discussions throughout the site. 

I don't think it's all about sponsors, either. I would bet my money that the majority of head-fi users hold some--if not a lot of--subjectivist beliefs. Seems to me it probably does make for a friendlier community for the range of perspectives when the heavy science discussion is dedicated to this sub forum.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> Another thing I've noticed is that the "expert" audiophiles in the other forums have a LOT of their own ego invested into their opinions. They aren't interested in arguing facts on point and they don't like being contradicted. If you question them on an opinion and provide information to make your point, they inevitably resort to ad hominem attacks. I usually take that as a tacit admission that they are unable to support their argument and have a sense of humor about it. But the humor makes them even more infuriated. So I just keep my distance and you know what if they can't take a joke!
> 
> One thing is for sure, audiophiles make for great poker players... they know how to bluff!


 
 Bluff, that's the only thing they can do.


----------



## bigshot

cel4145 said:


> I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure you are allowed to bring up a scientific perspective on the other forums. Just the cable forums is DBT discussion free.


 
  
 No, DBT is only allowed in Sound Science. Try suggesting controlled listening test results in any of the other forums and see how long it takes you to get zapped by the admins!
  
 Also, one of the precipitating events that resulted in the creation of the Sound Science group was the meltdown a cable manufacturer/member of the trade/advertiser had in the cables forum when he wasn't able to explain the pseudo-scientific sales pitch he published on his website. He got VERY angry, said some very inflammatory things, and stomped off in a huff.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Also, one of the precipitating events that resulted in the creation of the Sound Science group was the meltdown a cable manufacturer/member of the trade/advertiser had in the cables forum when he wasn't able to explain the pseudo-scientific sales pitch he published on his website. He got VERY angry, said some very inflammatory things, and stomped off in a huff.




Who was that?

se


----------



## cel4145

bigshot said:


> No, DBT is only allowed in Sound Science. Try suggesting controlled listening test results in any of the other forums and see how long it takes you to get zapped by the admins!




I frequently recommend someone try ABX testing in the newbie recommendations forum where I do most of my posting. Note Jude's original post about DBT where he says

"That means, no discussion of DBT (or ABX) from the standpoint of either pro-DBT or anti-DBT. "
http://www.head-fi.org/t/11585/about-cables/15#post_132417

So, for example, someone thinks that they need a DAP with more storage for all their lossless files. I'll tell them that many people find high bit rate mp3s indistinguishable from lossless in an ABX test with Foobar. And I'm not the only one who does that. Or if they ask whether or not a more expensive amp would provide better sound over their Objective 2, I might mention that in ABX tests, people often find that the amps are not distinguishable once you get up to good solid state amps like the O2. Or similarly if someone asks about buying expensive cables in that recommendation thread. But I don't (or at least try to avoid) argue about it or turn it into a pro-DBT or anti-DBT thing. It's more of a take what I said and you can try it and decide for yourself thing.

Note I don't do this about interconnect cables in the Cables forum. That's for the anti-DBT people like the Sound Science forum is for the objectivists.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Who was that?
> 
> se


 
 Definitely WASN'T you.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Definitely WASN'T you.




Ah! WHEW! 

Ain't getting any younger so just wanted to make sure. 

se


----------



## Sonic Defender

Retracted


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> Who was that?


 
  
 Can't remember the name of the company. It's probably in the thread that was locked back around that time. It was a sales rep that was assigned to HeadFi to talk up their products. I don't think he had MotT status, but people did some asking around and found out that he had been giving out free samples to posters. They were advertising at the time. He freaked out one night and started insulting everyone in the thread. The next day he and the ads were gone. A few weeks after that it was announced that Sound Science would be formed and it would be the only place where discussions of DBT would be allowed. This was a long time ago so my memory is a bit hazy on the details, but it was a very entertaining episode at the time.
  
 Are there any other old timers that remember this? It would have been mid 2000s, I guess. Now that I think about it, I think there was a period where discussion of DBT was forbidden before Sound Science was created. This is ten years ago or so.


----------



## bigshot

I did a little googling and I may be conflating two separate shills. But the main event involved a company called Virtual Dynamics. They had a rep handing out free cables at HeadFi through PMs and posting glowing posts about their products without identifying himself as a member of the trade as I remember. I think the guy who imploded was a junior rep who worked for the company that went by the name of Grizzlepaw. His freak out and all the reactions to it have been deleted.
  
 The thread is a fun read and will sound very familiar http://www.head-fi.org/t/293165/my-cat-tore-up-my-virtual-dynamics-power-3
  
 Googling I also ran across Patrick, the guy with the ostrich avatar who wrapped all his equipment in tin foil. He was one of the most entertaining trolls we ever had at HeadFi. I remember his breathless whispered videos where he showed how he cut up multi thousand dollar cables and glued them back together in different ways. He was a lot of fun. Like something out of a Werner Herzog film. Memories!


----------



## Ruben123

Hey guys, have a look at this link while drinking your beer in the saloon: http://www.headfonia.com/on-sound/
  
 Dont forget to read the comments and the replies from Mike (and when he does not reply, mainly when he does not agree of have an answer on it - like: why no abx)


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

ruben123 said:


> Hey guys, have a look at this link while drinking your beer in the saloon: http://www.headfonia.com/on-sound/
> 
> Dont forget to read the comments and the replies from Mike (and when he does not reply, mainly when he does not agree of have an answer on it - like: why no abx)


 

  
 I stopped going by their reviews over 3-4 years ago but this is still one of the everlasting gem that cleared any doubts in my mind that Mike is just plain delusional.
  

  
 I am not sure if the post was going to stay so I took a screen capture. The topic and comment section is much the same as what you have linked.


----------



## Ruben123

Lol so better put humans in space when they could survive better, much higher resolution and low light capturing.


----------



## dazzerfong

kamijoismyhero said:


> I stopped going by their reviews over 3-4 years ago but this is still one of the everlasting gem that cleared any doubts in my mind that Mike is just plain delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure if the post was going to stay so I took a screen capture. The topic and comment section is much the same as what you have linked.


 
 Hmmm, I guess Mike has eyes that can see IR and UV. Damn.......


----------



## RRod

Using new human-eye technology, we capture this most detailed shot of the sun yet!


----------



## lamode

kamijoismyhero said:


> I stopped going by their reviews over 3-4 years ago but this is still one of the everlasting gem that cleared any doubts in my mind that Mike is just plain delusional.




Yep, his comeback on the Hubble topic was almost ignorant beyond belief. I don't mock people for not knowing something and who want to learn but this is the type who knows nothing and closes his eyes to anything that contradicts his childish fantasies. I can't respect that.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I did a little googling and I may be conflating two separate shills. But the main event involved a company called Virtual Dynamics. They had a rep handing out free cables at HeadFi through PMs and posting glowing posts about their products without identifying himself as a member of the trade as I remember. I think the guy who imploded was a junior rep who worked for the company that went by the name of Grizzlepaw. His freak out and all the reactions to it have been deleted.
> 
> The thread is a fun read and will sound very familiar http://www.head-fi.org/t/293165/my-cat-tore-up-my-virtual-dynamics-power-3
> 
> Googling I also ran across Patrick, the guy with the ostrich avatar who wrapped all his equipment in tin foil. He was one of the most entertaining trolls we ever had at HeadFi. I remember his breathless whispered videos where he showed how he cut up multi thousand dollar cables and glued them back together in different ways. He was a lot of fun. Like something out of a Werner Herzog film. Memories!




Thanks!

Yeah, I knew about Patrick. The boy was batschiit crazy.

se


----------



## limpidglitch

It was a sad day indeed when the men in white lab coats took our Patrick away.

 Troll or sincere, I've never really figured it out. But no matter what, he seems to be moving upwards. Even managed to secure a distributor deal for his products.


----------



## lamode

bigshot said:


> The thread is a fun read and will sound very familiar http://www.head-fi.org/t/293165/my-cat-tore-up-my-virtual-dynamics-power-3


 
  
 What a train wreck! Thanks for the chuckles. Unbelievable that some people still defended the shonky cable even after learning the truth.


----------



## StanD

lamode said:


> What a train wreck! Thanks for the chuckles. Unbelievable that some people still defended the shonky cable even after learning the truth.


 
 The cat has more brains than the chumps that frequent the cables threads and believe in all the voodoo.


----------



## castleofargh

headphonia made me go crazy a few times, and every time I read PRAT I can't help but laugh. but I still went and read most posts for a long time trying to get a few valid information if only a battery life or some other specs for portable devices. that until http://www.headfonia.com/critique-of-audio-cables/  (thanks google for finding this with "headphonia japanese cable" as query ^_^.)
 I looked at the post, closed the tab and removed headphonia from my bookmarks. to be at that level of understanding and dare to make reviews, man that takes some massive balls.


----------



## StanD

Why do so many people believe that changing an opamp in a closed negative feedback circuit is going to change the sound signature?


----------



## Ruben123

Wow read that cable blog from Mike... he is somewhat frustrated it seems. Does he actually believe his own beliefs or is it pure marketing?


----------



## stv014

stand said:


> Why do so many people believe that changing an opamp in a closed negative feedback circuit is going to change the sound signature?


 
  
 I guess for the same reason they also believe in cables having sound signatures (silver = bright, etc.). With all the myths regarding negative feedback and amplifiers, it is probably also even easier to sell the idea than that of simple pieces of wire sounding different. Additionally, when only one device is available to test multiple op amps, swapping them usually takes too long time to allow for a fast switching comparison.


----------



## StanD

stv014 said:


> I guess for the same reason they also believe in cables having sound signatures (silver = bright, etc.). With all the myths regarding negative feedback and amplifiers, it is probably also even easier to sell the idea than that of simple pieces of wire sounding different. Additionally, when only one device is available to test multiple op amps, swapping them usually takes too long time to allow for a fast switching comparison.


 
 When I explain the human limitations of Echoic Memory, either they ignore it or go silent. The ones that go silent usually resume their ranting after a short rest period. Occasionally someone gets the drift.
 One of my favorite questions to someone that thinks a particular amp is let's say bright, is to identify the property of the amp that makes it so, especially snce the amp has a flat FR. They never can answer the question and go on with witchcraft or an angry response.


----------



## James-uk

That headphone is a technical mess as well!!!! But it costs $6000 so must sound good right?! I suppose there will be some BS about even harmonic distortion making it sound nice or something. 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/JPSLabsAbyssAB1266.pdf

For 6 grand I would want distortion levels well below 1% a nice FR and some clean looking square waves and impulse response . You know some good old fashioned engineering!


----------



## headwhacker

james-uk said:


> That headphone is a technical mess as well!!!! But it costs $6000 so must sound good right?! I suppose there will be some BS about even harmonic distortion making it sound nice or something.
> 
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/JPSLabsAbyssAB1266.pdf
> 
> For 6 grand I would want distortion levels well below 1% a nice FR and some clean looking square waves and impulse response . You know some good old fashioned engineering!


 
 It's the distortion and the weird FR that gives it magic


----------



## bigshot

ruben123 said:


> Lol so better put humans in space when they could survive better, much higher resolution and low light capturing.


 

 If I squint at the sun long enough, I can see the plumes of magma shooting out of it and I can count the sunspots... until I go blind!


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> If I squint at the sun long enough, I can see the plumes of magma shooting out of it and I can count the sunspots... until I go blind!


 
 If you stand on a CD Mat, you'll be OK.


----------



## maverickronin

james-uk said:


> That headphone is a technical mess as well!!!! But it costs $6000 so must sound good right?! I suppose there will be some BS about even harmonic distortion making it sound nice or something.
> 
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/JPSLabsAbyssAB1266.pdf
> 
> For 6 grand I would want distortion levels well below 1% a nice FR and some clean looking square waves and impulse response . You know some good old fashioned engineering!


 
  
 Heard this over the weekend.  It didn't sound bad.  It sounded like a really good open T50RP mod.  It's a fine headphone.  It has a very open sound for for an ortho and most dynamics can't touch it's visceral bass.  That can make up for it's loss of clarity, detail, imaging, and soundstage projection depending on you preferences.
  
 It's just not $4,500-$5,500 fine.
  
 Maybe $750...
  
 If I was feeling generous about all the fancy accessories it come with...
  
 Note to Abyss fanboys:  Blame the amp I heard it on.


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> Heard this over the weekend.  It didn't sound bad.  It sounded like a really good open T50RP mod.  It's a fine headphone.  It has a very open sound for for an ortho and most dynamics can't touch it's visceral bass.  That can make up for it's loss of clarity, detail, imaging, and soundstage projection depending on you preferences.
> 
> It's just not $4,500-$5,500 fine.
> 
> ...


 
 Could've been the power cable to your Amp and/or DAC.


----------



## maverickronin

stand said:


> Could've been the power cable to your Amp and/or DAC.


 
  
 I was playing my music from a gold plated USB drive though.  If that doesn't make it sound better than _nothing _will.


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> I was playing my music from a gold plated from a gold plated USB drive though.  If that doesn't make it sound better than _nothing _will.


 
 Were you standing on a CD Mat? That could be the weak link.


----------



## castleofargh

reminded me of something ^_^.


----------



## maverickronin

Dr Oz, purveyor of the original kind of snake oil...


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> Dr Oz, purveyor of the original kind of snake oil...


 
 Snake oil is good in salad dressing.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

Personally I think he was a tad harsh on the sloth wrangler. One bad day at the office, and it will be the wrangler being on the receiving end of some wrangling... And we all know that no amount of Prickebush Tickletush balm will soothe the mental scars.
  
 In fact someone should send Mr Sloth Wrangler some CD mats pronto.


----------



## dazzerfong

> _ Lol yes obviously you don't agree with putting the burden of proof of the non believers because you don't really have any proof._


 
 Oh my God. Is this guy thick? Jesus, and I thought lawyers were d**** with their 'burden of proof' thrown around. I now understand why they do.
  
 Deep down, I wish there were more people like him. So people like me could make money off him.


----------



## castleofargh

suntanscanman said:


> Personally I think he was a tad harsh on the sloth wrangler. One bad day at the office, and it will be the wrangler being on the receiving end of some wrangling... And we all know that no amount of Prickebush Tickletush balm will soothe the mental scars.
> 
> In fact someone should send Mr Sloth Wrangler some CD mats pronto.


 

 saw one passing through our garden when I was a kid in french guiana. those stuff are scary... slow. it took about 45mn for it to get down from one tree, then "walk" (if I can it that) to the other one and get passed the fence. the boredom in the air was solid.


----------



## uchihaitachi

In terms of sheer measurements, which one is better?
  
 http://www.seeko.co.kr/zboard4/zboard.php?id=m_device&page=1&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=off&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=6
  
 http://www.seeko.co.kr/zboard4/zboard.php?id=cool_review&no=422
  
 Loving this Korean website for all their excellent objective reviews!


----------



## limpidglitch

On the AK measurements they mention "no load" and "32 ohm", but I can see no such mentions in the Cowon review?


----------



## uchihaitachi

Unfortunately for the Cowon they only did no load tests...


----------



## limpidglitch

Ah, practically useless then.


----------



## uchihaitachi

I am trying to look for an mp3 player that is audibly transparent, and not ridiculously expensive.
  
 However most MP3 players I have come across either have serious issues with low impedance phones or UI issues or you know the usual 'audiophile dap' failures....


----------



## Ruben123

Sansa Clip+/Fuze. Very low impedance, cheap, excellent sq.


----------



## uchihaitachi

ruben123 said:


> Sansa Clip+/Fuze. Very low impedance, cheap, excellent sq.


 
 Something better than the Sandisk line-up? I already have the clip + but would like something with a proper screen.


----------



## Ruben123

Sansa Fuze.


----------



## castleofargh

those no load measurements for DAPs... cowon always gave that on all its models and I've complained for years about how useless it was. I whined recently about stereophile doing only that for the pono.
 "hey you'll be using a really low impedance expensive IEM/CIEM with those portable devices? let me measure how good it is into 100000ohm for you!" if that's not a troll I don't know what is.
  
  
 I'm in love with this blog http://headphoniaks.com/blog/
 it's not like they come up with one new measurement every month, but what they do is great and very informative. I can only hope that they will keep on doing it for more DAPs. I feel like if I want to have my answers about the pono, only those guys might do it. because after 2years of world wide blahblah about pono, and even talking to the head engineer, I still don't even know what a pono can drive. that's how much useless BS we've been fed. but I'm complaining too much on pono, can I drive my headphone with a ZX2? no ******* clue. does it measure well into 8 or 16ohm? no idea. but hey! it has some custom caps and they solder the battery with larger wire, that has to be all we need to know to make an informed purchase right!


----------



## Steve Eddy

castleofargh said:


> those no load measurements for DAPs... cowon always gave that on all its models and I've complained for years about how useless it was. I whined recently about stereophile doing only that for the pono.
> "hey you'll be using a really low impedance expensive IEM/CIEM with those portable devices? let me measure how good it is into 100000ohm for you!" if that's not a troll I don't know what is.




Wait, what?

Was looking at John's Pono measurements and he did them into a 600 ohm load. I agree he should have also used something more like a 32 ohm load, but 600 ohms isn't exactly no load.

se


----------



## uchihaitachi

castleofargh said:


> those no load measurements for DAPs... cowon always gave that on all its models and I've complained for years about how useless it was. I whined recently about stereophile doing only that for the pono.
> "hey you'll be using a really low impedance expensive IEM/CIEM with those portable devices? let me measure how good it is into 100000ohm for you!" if that's not a troll I don't know what is.
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I think I should provide a more comprehensive feedback for the mp3 player I am looking for.
  
 I have the benchmark dac 1 pre, the only reason for which is that, I know its technical specifications are crazily good which gives me a peace of mind as well as curing my upgraditis. 
  
 So I realise that, if I did blind testing, I probably wouldn't be able to tell most decent mp3 players apart (likewise I can't tell most decent dacs from the dac 1 pre in a blind test), however just for the peace of mind, I am looking for a mp3 player that isn't (stupidly audiophile i.e. brick, horrific ui, dumb design) but has excellent technical specifications, and usability to boot!


----------



## bigshot

It sound like you are seeking peace of mind, not sound quality. My recommendation is to listen to more truly great music.


----------



## uchihaitachi

bigshot said:


> It sound like you are seeking peace of mind, not sound quality. My recommendation is to listen to more truly great music.


 
 I am seeking both peace of mind and sound quality. I have always preferred gear that is transparent and as a result turns out to measure well. 
  
 Plus I would like a change away from my sansa clip plus when I am travelling.


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> Was looking at John's Pono measurements and he did them into a 600 ohm load. I agree he should have also used something more like a 32 ohm load, but 600 ohms isn't exactly no load.
> 
> se


 
 How about one of these? Just don't forget to put a CD Mat under them.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> How about one of these? Just don't forget to put a CD Mat under them.






se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> se


 
 Well I can think of some guys that believe an amp has to pass 90 MHz to sound good, gotta use an RF dummy load. Heck, I can pass gas and feel good with a different kind of load.


----------



## castleofargh

steve eddy said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > those no load measurements for DAPs... cowon always gave that on all its models and I've complained for years about how useless it was. I whined recently about stereophile doing only that for the pono.
> ...


 

 yup some stuff into 600ohm others into 100kohm. not the same thing, but both strange when portable headphones are rarely above 50ohm and so many IEMs these days reach below 16ohm. what's a FR graph into 100Kohm is telling us about a portable DAP? that I could probably use the HO as a line output. great, I take that information, but where are the ones I really need?
  
 to me it's even more important with the pono because I want to see the actual impact of not using negative feedback and all the stuff done for "time smearing" while sacrificing FR.
 if the pono does good and the sacrifices end up being 0.2db somewhere, then great, we know that when it's well done we indeed can get good results.
 and if the measurements are all over the place, then we would know why almost any engineer believes negative feedback to have benefits that massively overrun the side effects.
  
 I would have thought that more people would be interested, and that measurements would be all over the place. we discussed that a little with RRod in PM and that's it. 2years of "mp3 iz baaddd", "we don't know the difference between dynamic compression and mp3 compression, but we'll still tell you about it" in every magazines, on every TV show, but what about the pono? nothing. John's review is the closest thing there is
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, and I'm actually grateful, we at least know a little about the output impedance."that's something". except that he doesn't measure what matters for a DAP. he just did stuff that where pretty much assured to look good, and to me, it's more like an endorsement of the pono where we show what can be showed and forget about actual real life use.


----------



## uchihaitachi

castleofargh said:


> yup some stuff into 600ohm others into 100kohm. not the same thing, but both strange when portable headphones are rarely above 50ohm and so many IEMs these days reach below 16ohm. what's a FR graph into 100Kohm is telling us about a portable DAP? that I could probably use the HO as a line output. great, I take that information, but where are the ones I really need?
> 
> to me it's even more important with the pono because I want to see the actual impact of not using negative feedback and all the stuff done for "time smearing" while sacrificing FR.
> if the pono does good and the sacrifices end up being 0.2db somewhere, then great, we know that when it's well done we indeed can get good results.
> ...


 
 Do you know of any mp3 players then that come out shining to after a legitimately conducted battery of tests?
  
 All the technical measurements seem to have faults in one way or the other


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Well I can think of some guys that believe an amp has to pass 90 MHz to sound good, gotta use an RF dummy load. Heck, I can pass gas and feel good with a different kind of load.




HA!

Ewwww. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

castleofargh said:


> yup some stuff into 600ohm others into 100kohm. not the same thing, but both strange when portable headphones are rarely above 50ohm and so many IEMs these days reach below 16ohm. what's a FR graph into 100Kohm is telling us about a portable DAP? that I could probably use the HO as a line output. great, I take that information, but where are the ones I really need?
> 
> to me it's even more important with the pono because I want to see the actual impact of not using negative feedback and all the stuff done for "time smearing" while sacrificing FR.
> if the pono does good and the sacrifices end up being 0.2db somewhere, then great, we know that when it's well done we indeed can get good results.
> ...




Yeah, I understand, and agree they should have tested into lower impedance loads. Was just picking the nit that it wasn't all tested with no load is all. You know how I am sometimes. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Yeah, I understand, and agree they should have tested into lower impedance loads. Was just picking the nit that it wasn't all tested with no load is all. You know how I am sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Is that why the North Koreans want to fully test their nukes?


----------



## castleofargh

> Originally Posted by *uchihaitachi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Do you know of any mp3 players then that come out shining to after a legitimately conducted battery of tests?
> 
> All the technical measurements seem to have faults in one way or the other


 
 I know we look like we don't want to answer you, but there is no answer because there isn't enough data.
  
 to me it mainly depends on the headphone. with the proper headphone specs, even a cellphone will measure real great. the fun starts when we go into hard to drive stuff, and really easy to drive stuff. both ends are troublesome for the amp section of a DAP and stuff optimized for one end might suck at the other end. so the perfect DAP is most likely BS unless it has a really great amp section. something that strangely enough, some of the most expensive DAPs don't have(ZX2 anyone?).
  
 add to that your own needs for screen size, weight, functions, and most likely you'll end up like me with no clear choice because nothing does all that you want.
 I like the sound quality of the X1, and into my amp it's really a great source. but the functionalities...
 I like my sony A15 because it's small and I charge it maybe every 10days or so, using it is cool really, but 4ohm and some hiss make it hard for a few of my IEMs(and overall specs aren't amazing). and TBH I preferred the UI of my A867, except that the battery sucks. and those are the DAPs I really like and enjoy using...
  
 I've tried a good deal of DAPs that are a nightmare to use, bugs, no screen, limited file format, super loud hiss, strong roll off in the bass or the trebles on IEMs, did you try the touchscreen on the dx50 when it came out? did you try carrying a colorfly CK4 or a studioV or a X3 near a cellphone? 
 looking for the right DAP is a battle for me. and we all have our own preferences, that makes it even less likely to be able to suggest a proper DAP to somebody else.
  
 also I dislike both android and apple for mostly nn audio reasons, so that's a great limit for me.
 in the end I use the sony A15 with some etyKid IEMs most of the time ^_^. that's how I roll when I have a pair of jh13 that are still my favorite IEM once EQed and played into my amp. but I'm at a point where good portable sound is a bother more than a pleasure. and the only reason why I'm not using one of my sansa clips, is the battery life of the A15. else rockboxed stuff are really the best.
  
 that's not what you're asking, but I don't have a better answer, measurements just aren't available and the proper amp is a better answer to sound quality than proper DAP.


----------



## bigshot

uchihaitachi said:


> Do you know of any mp3 players then that come out shining to after a legitimately conducted battery of tests?


 
  
 iPods. But I would imagine most DAPs are audibly transparent with the right headphones.


----------



## castleofargh

steve eddy said:


> Yeah, I understand, and agree they should have tested into lower impedance loads. Was just picking the nit that it wasn't all tested with no load is all. You know how I am sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 sure, TBH I made my post from my memories of me whining after reading innerfidelity's post that linked to stereophile. so last time I looked at the stereophile page it was at the end of march. and obviously my hater's mind remembered the 1000kohm more than anything else.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> iPods. But I would imagine most DAPs are audibly transparent with the right headphones.


 
 iPod Touch 5G, if you can live with the limited storage space. In any case you can store plenty of 320 kbps mp3's in 32 or 64 GB. It can also connect to an external DAC using the Lightening CCK cable, possibly requiring a powered USB Hub depending on the DAC.


----------



## uchihaitachi

stand said:


> iPod Touch 5G, if you can live with the limited storage space. In any case you can store plenty of 320 kbps mp3's in 32 or 64 GB. It can also connect to an external DAC using the Lightening CCK cable, possibly requiring a powered USB Hub depending on the DAC.


 
 Is that the on Ken Rockwell did extremely detailed measurements for with and without load?


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


> Is that the on Ken Rockwell did extremely detailed measurements for with and without load?


 
 I believe so. I have one and it sounds great and does work with an external DAC that no longer requires Apple certification. I've used it with 3 different DACs, 2 required a powered UDB Hub.


----------



## uchihaitachi

stand said:


> I believe so. I have one and it sounds great and does work with an external DAC that no longer requires Apple certification. I've used it with 3 different DACs, 2 required a powered UDB Hub.


 
 I have clearly been influenced by the anti apple vibes in head-fi... HAving read the technical reviews, it's a mightily high performing dap. Will probably go for that, thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


> I have clearly been influenced by the anti apple vibes in head-fi... HAving read the technical reviews, it's a mightily high performing dap. Will probably go for that, thanks for the recommendation.


 
 I'm not much of an Apple fan, I use Android phones and Tablets. But this little guy works nicely. Mostly when on the go I use my Galaxy Note 3 with a variety of player software.
 On Apple/iOS, look for Neutron MP (Music Player) which started out on Android. This has a parametric EQ and sounds great on either platform. I also stream from Google Play (Subscription) on both Android and iOS.


----------



## Steve Eddy

They'll take my iPad Retina when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> They'll take my iPad Retina when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
> 
> se


 
 There are probably more than one troll on Head-Fi that would be glad to help you on that.


----------



## cel4145

uchihaitachi said:


> I have clearly been influenced by the anti apple vibes in head-fi... HAving read the technical reviews, it's a mightily high performing dap. Will probably go for that, thanks for the recommendation.




I think it's more of an anti-iTunes and anti-lightning connector vibe than an anti-Apple.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> I think it's more of an anti-iTunes and anti-lightning connector vibe than an anti-Apple.


 
 Yep, iTunes sux, big time. I like the Lightening connector being small and reversible, except that there is no real LOD connection for a real line out from the internal DAC. I guess most folks are mad if they invested heaviy in the 30 pin world and got screwed by the change. I'll bet that they'll be heading towards USB 3 Type C connectors as their next trick.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> There are probably more than one troll on Head-Fi that would be glad to help you on that.




I'm sure there are. 

se


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Yep, iTunes sux, big time. I like the Lightening connector being small and reversible, except that there is no real LOD connection for a real line out from the internal DAC. I guess most folks are mad if they invested heaviy in the 30 pin world and got screwed by the change. I'll bet that they'll be heading towards USB 3 Type C connectors as their next trick.




Or maybe they'll go back to that idea of their own, proprietary headphone jack which they were tossing around. (lol)


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> There are probably more than one troll on Head-Fi that would be glad to help you on that.


 
  
  


steve eddy said:


> I'm sure there are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I'm probably not going to get Christmas cards from them either.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Yep, iTunes sux, big time.




What's wrong with iTunes? Works ok for me.

se


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Or maybe they'll go back to that idea of their own, proprietary headphone jack which they were tossing around. (lol)


 
 That was probably more rumor than reality. Then again, I wouldn't put anything past them.
 So who's going to get an iWatch? $350 USD gets you a small model with a pastic band. $500 is more like what will fit a man's wrist and not look like crap. That's a first gen device with a battery that might not make it till bedtime. Consider that money in the garbage can, because next year an almost functional replacement will be out to pull your chain for another year.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> So who's going to get an iWatch? $350 USD gets you a small model with a pastic band. $500 is more like what will fit a man's wrist and not look like crap. That's a first gen device with a battery that might not make it till bedtime. Consider that money in the garbage can, because next year an almost functional replacement will be out to pull your chain for another year.




I don't even wear a regular watch. Not going to shackle myself with an Apple Watch. 

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> I don't even wear a regular watch. Not going to shackle myself with an Apple Watch.
> 
> se


 
 TIm Cook is not sending you a Christmas card this year either.
 Are you ready for the new iBeats portable DAC/Amp? I got to start my own rumor.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> That was probably more rumor than reality. Then again, I wouldn't put anything past them.
> So who's going to get an iWatch? $350 USD gets you a small model with a pastic band. $500 is more like what will fit a man's wrist and not look like crap. That's a first gen device with a battery that might not make it till bedtime. Consider that money in the garbage can, because next year an almost functional replacement will be out to pull your chain for another year.




Could have been a rumor they started just to test the waters. They would love to have every headphone manufacturer paying a licensing fee for a proprietary jack patent. That is completely the way Apple thinks. 

I'm sure the watch is over priced.


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Could have been a rumor they started just to test the waters. They would love to have every headphone manufacturer paying a licensing fee for a proprietary jack patent. That is completely the way Apple thinks.
> 
> I'm sure the watch is over priced.


 
 Overpriced and obsolete in a few weeks. I'm still trying to figure out how they're going to make money on the $3B Beats buyout, I'm _skeptical_.


----------



## gikigill

steve eddy said:


> I don't even wear a regular watch. Not going to shackle myself with an Apple Watch.
> 
> se




Try a few nicer ones Steve, doesn't have to be outrageously expensive. I have a $500 Armani Rose Gold watch and it's been with me everyday for 7 years. Looks smart and gets compliments too. If you're feeling rich, a Tag Heuer Carrera might be more up your alley. 

I would feel incomplete with an empty wrist.


----------



## limpidglitch

gikigill said:


> I would feel incomplete with an empty wrist.


 
  
 And that doesn't worry you?


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> TIm Cook is not sending you a Christmas card this year either.
> Are you ready for the new iBeats portable DAC/Amp? I got to start my own rumor.




iPad Air is on my wish list. 

se


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> iPad Air is on my wish list.
> 
> se




You aren't going to buy the matching Beats headphones to go with the Beats Audio they will install on the next version?


----------



## Steve Eddy

gikigill said:


> Try a few nicer ones Steve, doesn't have to be outrageously expensive. I have a $500 Armani Rose Gold watch and it's been with me everyday for 7 years. Looks smart and gets compliments too. If you're feeling rich, a Tag Heuer Carrera might be more up your alley.
> 
> I would feel incomplete with an empty wrist.




I feel incomplete without my seatbelt on, but I just can't think of any reason why I would want something on my wrist. I don't wear jewelry either. Call me weird. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> You aren't going to buy the matching Beats headphones to go with the Beats Audio they will install on the next version?




Hehehe. Actually I don't use my iPad for music. About the only audio use is podcasts, which I just play through the speaker.

se


----------



## gikigill

limpidglitch said:


> And that doesn't worry you?




You might be confusing "hand" with wrist


----------



## castleofargh

I must be getting old, but I don't see the point of those watches.
  
  
  
 and gikigill, don't empty your wrist mate! life is worth fighting, don't give up!


----------



## gikigill

I'm 30 so you probably aren't much older than me. Older men seem to be more likely to own multiple watches.


----------



## dprimary

steve eddy said:


> I feel incomplete without my seatbelt on, but I just can't think of any reason why I would want something on my wrist. I don't wear jewelry either. Call me weird.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 Since the only watches I have own are pocket watches I really do see the need for a smart watch, or is my phone already my pocket smart watch.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Why do people dislike iTunes somuch?


----------



## Steve Eddy

dprimary said:


> Since the only watches I have own are pocket watches I really do see the need for a smart watch, or is my phone already my pocket smart watch.




I don't even have a cellphone, let alone a smartphone.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

uchihaitachi said:


> Why do people dislike iTunes somuch?




I dunno. I asked Stan, but never got a reply. 

se


----------



## NLNH

castleofargh said:


> I know we look like we don't want to answer you, but there is no answer because there isn't enough data.
> 
> to me it mainly depends on the headphone. with the proper headphone specs, even a cellphone will measure real great. the fun starts when we go into hard to drive stuff, and really easy to drive stuff. both ends are troublesome for the amp section of a DAP and stuff optimized for one end might suck at the other end. so the perfect DAP is most likely BS unless it has a really great amp section. something that strangely enough, some of the most expensive DAPs don't have(ZX2 anyone?).
> 
> ...




well i guess the discussion should start from the battery quality of a dap, also run time. Simply physics. : (

ask yourself how much power a good amp (to you) draws and what is going on in these daps


----------



## dprimary

steve eddy said:


> I don't even have a cellphone, let alone a smartphone.
> 
> se


 

 I wish I can't afford a receptionist. Cellphones are tens of thousands cheaper.


----------



## dprimary

steve eddy said:


> iPad Air is on my wish list.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I just bought one last week. I have about the same amount of attachment to my computers as I do a good screwdriver. Ok I have no problem paying $20 for a screwdriver. 
 I opened the box one morning to configure it, and I have to say I did pause and just looked at it, turning it, feeling the weight. It is so thin both heavy and light at the same time a seamless fusion of glass and aluminum. It is half the thickness of any other tablet I have,and crazy fast at tasks. Apple's obsession with thinness drives me crazy, I would rather have twice the battery life and thicker. But looking at the air you start to wonder how does thing even have a battery, let alone electronics in it.


----------



## headdict

uchihaitachi said:


> I am seeking both peace of mind and sound quality. I have always preferred gear that is transparent and as a result turns out to measure well.
> 
> Plus I would like a change away from my sansa clip plus when I am travelling.



You're almost there. Sansa clip plus = sound quality. Bigger screen = Sansa Fuze. Stop worrying = peace of mind.


----------



## StanD

uchihaitachi said:


> Why do people dislike iTunes somuch?


 
  
  


steve eddy said:


> I dunno. I asked Stan, but never got a reply.
> 
> se


 
 The User Interface and workflow doesn't appeal to me. It's good for those who live in the Cupertino Ecosystem.


----------



## gikigill

And iTunes is a total dog on Windows. Runs perfectly on Macs though.
  
 Whether that's deliberate or not is up in the air,


----------



## StanD

gikigill said:


> And iTunes is a total dog on Windows. Runs perfectly on Macs though.
> 
> Whether that's deliberate or not is up in the air,


 
 Yep crook software on Windoze. Either deliberate or by ineptness....or both.


----------



## lamode

steve eddy said:


> What's wrong with iTunes? Works ok for me.
> 
> se


 
  
 iTunes is a cluttered, clunky, mishmash of tools.


----------



## lamode

steve eddy said:


> I don't even wear a regular watch. Not going to shackle myself with an Apple Watch.
> 
> se


 
  
 +1
  
 I wouldn't wear one if it were free.


----------



## StanD

> Originally Posted by *Steve Eddy*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 +2 If I got one for free it would go right to a FS forum.


----------



## limpidglitch

gikigill said:


> You might be confusing "hand" with wrist


 
  
 No.
 Does it worry you that you rely on an inanimate object to 'make you whole'?


----------



## Steve Eddy

dprimary said:


> I just bought one last week. I have about the same amount of attachment to my computers as I do a good screwdriver. Ok I have no problem paying $20 for a screwdriver.
> I opened the box one morning to configure it, and I have to say I did pause and just looked at it, turning it, feeling the weight. It is so thin both heavy and light at the same time a seamless fusion of glass and aluminum. It is half the thickness of any other tablet I have,and crazy fast at tasks. Apple's obsession with thinness drives me crazy, I would rather have twice the battery life and thicker. But looking at the air you start to wonder how does thing even have a battery, let alone electronics in it.




Yeah. When I first got my iPad, I got it with the leather cover with the magnetic catch. I'd be embarrassed to say how much time I spent just pulling it off and putting it back on. I was transfixed. The elegance, the simplicity, the precision. And then that Retina display. 'Nuff said. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> The User Interface and workflow doesn't appeal to me. It's good for those who live in the Cupertino Ecosystem.




Ah, ok. I don't really use iTunes itself too much. I'm mostly using my iPod Nano.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Ah, ok. I don't really use iTunes itself too much. I'm mostly using my iPod Nano.
> 
> se


 
 Do you download to it using iTunes on a Mac?


----------



## gikigill

limpidglitch said:


> No.
> Does it worry you that you rely on an inanimate object to 'make you whole'?




Just like how most people won't step out without their clothes, I need my watch on me at all times. Similar to how a lot of folks won't leave home without their cell phones.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Do you download to it using iTunes on a Mac?




No. PC. But it's all done automagically. I just have to plug in the Nano or my iPad. I typically buy iTunes content on my iPad, since that's what I'm using 99.5% of the time now. I only use my PC for CAD and graphics work anymore. So I buy content on my iPad, plug it in and it updates the music content on iTunes, then when I plug in my Nano, iTunes updates it. Simple simple.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> No. PC. But it's all done automagically. I just have to plug in the Nano or my iPad. I typically buy iTunes content on my iPad, since that's what I'm using 99.5% of the time now. I only use my PC for CAD and graphics work anymore. So I buy content on my iPad, plug it in and it updates the music content on iTunes, then when I plug in my Nano, iTunes updates it. Simple simple.
> 
> se


 
 So you use iTunes on the PC. What about mp3 files that you rip, etc? Media Monkey (Free Edition) can do that for you, easy to use UI for selectivley loading music onto your iDevices.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> So you use iTunes on the PC. What about mp3 files that you rip, etc? Media Monkey (Free Edition) can do that for you, easy to use UI for selectivley loading music onto your iDevices.




I don't buy much physical media anymore. When I do, I just pop it into my PC, iTunes pulls it up, I choose the cuts I want to import and I'm done. Simple simple.

se


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> I don't buy much physical media anymore. When I do, I just pop it into my PC, iTunes pulls it up, I choose the cuts I want to import and I'm done. Simple simple.
> 
> se


 
 I hope you use a CD Mat.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> I hope you use a CD Mat.




Even better. I use a CD George. 

se


----------



## limpidglitch

gikigill said:


> Just like how most people won't step out without their clothes, I need my watch on me at all times. Similar to how a lot of folks won't leave home without their cell phones.


 
  
 And you see no problem in that?


----------



## StanD

So who's in a hurry to buy a Pono?


----------



## cel4145

steve eddy said:


> Even better. I use a CD George.
> 
> se




You should save up for the CD iMat. I hear it makes CDs played through iTunes sound better :etysmile:


----------



## StanD

steve eddy said:


> Even better. I use a CD George.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  


cel4145 said:


> You should save up for the CD iMat. I hear it makes CDs played through iTunes sound better


 
 Steve's getting a Pono.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> Steve's getting a Pono.




OMG Ponies!

(For some reason, that's what I hear when people get all excited about Ponos)


----------



## Steve Eddy

cel4145 said:


> You should save up for the CD iMat. I hear it makes CDs played through iTunes sound better :etysmile:




Not as good as my iGeorge. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> Steve's getting a Pono.




No need for insults, Stan. 

se


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> Steve's getting a Pono.


 
  
  


steve eddy said:


> No need for insults, Stan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 That's the only Neil Young is going to send you a Christmas card.


----------



## Steve Eddy

stand said:


> That's the only Neil Young is going to send you a Christmas card.




HUMBUG!

se


----------



## StanD

stand said:


> That's the only Neil Young is going to send you a Christmas card.


 
  
  


steve eddy said:


> HUMBUG!
> 
> se


 
 Don't be the Grinch that panned the Pono.


----------



## Ruben123

What you felt for a pono? Do you have enough 24 bit wavs?


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> What you felt for a pono? Do you have enough 24 bit wavs?


 
 A felt pouch? Young was hoping for a tsunami in sales, looks more like a tinkle.
 24bit _waves_ sound best with iBeats headphones.


----------



## Ruben123

I prefer 5% of the original information in my music though !

OK my library is mostly flac to be fair, no wavering 192khz (that quickness) waves ! Imagine


----------



## StanD

ruben123 said:


> I prefer 5% of the original information in my music though !
> 
> OK my library is mostly flac to be fair, no wavering 192khz (that quickness) waves ! Imagine


 
 I knew I'd get some flak over that.


----------



## cel4145

stand said:


> I knew I'd get some flak over that.




Don't you mean "some _flac_?"


----------



## StanD

cel4145 said:


> Don't you mean "some _flac_?"


 
 No I meant Flak as in kaboom or heat.


----------



## bigshot

lamode said:


> iTunes is a cluttered, clunky, mishmash of tools.


 

 I have a massive collection of music, and iTunes handles it like a champ. It runs 24/7. Very fleixible and very stable. But I am on a Mac. May be different on a PC.


----------



## lamode

bigshot said:


> I have a massive collection of music, and iTunes handles it like a champ. It runs 24/7. Very fleixible and very stable. But I am on a Mac. May be different on a PC.


 

 I am on a Mac too. No stability issues but the interface is awful, and it tries to be too many things.


----------



## bigshot

Do you swim upstream on tagging conventions? I know a lot of people who listen to classical music do that and run into problems with iTunes.
  
 I usually don't use the interface on my computer. Everything goes through my airport system, so the interface I use is the one on my iPhone. You might try that. It's pretty simple.


----------



## limpidglitch

I wouldn't have minded if iTunes had a few more options on playback (and ogg/FLAC support would have been nice), but as an archival tool I think it works very well, extensively helped by Doug's Scripts.


----------



## bigshot

Most people don't use the smart play listing feature because it takes a while to figure out how the script works, but if you set up some good criteria, you can really make your collection present itself to you in very useful ways.


----------



## limpidglitch

Yeah, the smart playlists are fun, I use them a lot.
 One thing that often bugs me, though, is that the arguments can only be joined by AND operators, no ORs.
 So if I want to collect all my Händel in one playlist, and I've been a bit sloppy with the tagging, I can't do it by asking for all tracks where: Type is "music" AND (Composer contains "Händel" OR Artist contains "Händel" OR Album contains "Händel" OR Composer contains "Handel" OR Artist contains "Handel" OR Album contains "Handel"), for example.
 It can be done by using AppleScripts, but it is a bit of extra work.


----------



## gikigill

limpidglitch said:


> And you see no problem in that?




The problem being?


----------



## limpidglitch

gikigill said:


> The problem being?


 
  
 I don't know quite.
  
 A watch is a piece of jewellery. The way you expressed such an existential dependency on it just seemed a little… extreme.


----------



## gikigill

.


----------



## gikigill

gikigill said:


> It's the modern equivalent of the hat. No self respecting member of older societies would be seen dead without one in public.
> 
> Besides my workplace demands a prim and proper look from everyone so it fits in nicely.
> 
> Imagine Lincoln without his Top Hat?


----------



## limpidglitch

You're imagining yourself as Abe Lincoln? 
 That's only making you look even more vain.


----------



## gikigill

limpidglitch said:


> You're imagining yourself as Abe Lincoln?
> That's only making you look even more vain.


 
  
 How could you possibly deduce that is beyond comprehension. Lincoln has been always depicted as having a Top Hat
  
 http://americanhistory.si.edu/lincoln/introduction
  
 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/abraham-lincolns-top-hat-the-inside-story-3764960/?no-ist
  
  
  
 I dress nice in current fashion, no Top Hats in my wardrobe


----------



## bigshot

limpidglitch said:


> So if I want to collect all my Händel in one playlist, and I've been a bit sloppy with the tagging...


 
  
 The "sloppy with the tagging" is the problem though, not the playlist itself. You could always do a global search for "Handel" and correct whatever tagging problem is causing the problem.


----------



## limpidglitch

bigshot said:


> The "sloppy with the tagging" is the problem though, not the playlist itself. You could always do a global search for "Handel" and correct whatever tagging problem is causing the problem.


 
  
 I'm not too shabby on that part, it was mostly a convenient example.
 Most recent real world example was when I wanted to make a list of all un-played tracks, but not have them immediately drop out of the playlist as I play through an album. Logically it could have been solved with: Times Played is "0" OR (Times Played is "1" AND Last Played is "during last 6 hrs"), or something like that. Not a biggie really, just would have been fun to have.


----------



## bigshot

Hey! My like buttons reappeared! Can you guys see my like button now?


----------



## maverickronin

bigshot said:


> Hey! My like buttons reappeared! Can you guys see my like button now?


 
  
 +1


----------



## davidsh

bigshot said:


> Hey! My like buttons reappeared! Can you guys see my like button now?



May the Admins show mercy on thy Soul and grant thee the gift of Likeability


----------



## dazzerfong

bigshot said:


> Hey! My like buttons reappeared! Can you guys see my like button now?


 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.


----------



## Don Hills

I like it!


----------



## Steve Eddy

don hills said:


> I like it!




I guess that makes you the John, eh? 

se


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> Hey! My like buttons reappeared! Can you guys see my like button now?


 
  
 And Mod said, "Let there be like, " and there was like.


----------



## Steve Eddy

sonitus mirus said:


> And Mod said, "Let there be like, " and there was like.




HAHAHAHA! Very good!

se


----------



## imackler

Dear Sound Science Friends...
  
 I'm tired. Weary, even. 
  
 I keep hearing about different amps not having enough power to get the most out of the HD650. (There _appears _to be a correlation between an amps ability to drive the HD650 and the amp's cost. Surprise!) From the science side, I understand enough to know that you can there _are _amps that don't have enough power, depending on compression and my listening volume. 
  
 I'm looking for either a portable usb dac/amp or a portable dap (I'd appreciate options on both) that will drive the HD650 cleanly and powerfully. I want something that measures well, but after years in headfi, I can't really get my mind around the science of the thing. (I want portable because I'm looking for one solution to use with my HD600 at the office and my HD650 at home. If it was flexible enough to handle low gain iems, too, I'd be even happier.)
  
 What are my options in the <$400 price range? 
  
 I really appreciate any help.


----------



## maverickronin

When I had a pair of HD650s I found them fairly easy to drive.  Their high impedance would get a pretty clean signal out of most anything with a headphone jack, though the maximum volume might end up being limited.
  
 A better place to start might be by asking what you didn't like using with your HD650s and why.


----------



## davidsh

O2, Magni, the usual contenders


----------



## cjl

An O2 will drive it just fine. What makes you think your current amp is insufficient though? More power just lets you drive it louder, so if your current amp doesn't distort at the loudest volume you listen, there's no need for a new one.


----------



## imackler

When I had an o2 in the past, there was distortion with my dac on high gain with the HD650. This is an impedance problem w the source, right? What specs on a dac should I look for to not have distortion w an 02?


----------



## maverickronin

imackler said:


> When I had an o2 in the past, there was distortion with my dac on high gain with the HD650. This is an impedance problem w the source, right? What specs on a dac should I look for to not have distortion w an 02?


 
  
 That's probably because the output voltage on your DAC was too high above the 2V "standard" the O2 was designed for.  The maximum gain you can use on  the O2 is 7 divided your source's maximum output voltage.


----------



## cjl

Why did you use high gain? I would think with a fairly high output voltage DAC, an O2 would be more than adequate on low gain to drive HD650s to earsplitting levels.
  
 (and as maverickronin said, the O2 distorts if the product of the input level and the gain is too high, so if you have that problem, you can restructure the gain in the O2 by changing out some resistors, attenuate the input level a bit, or just use the O2 on low gain to avoid that issue)


----------



## maverickronin




----------



## Steve Eddy

Yay! Bigshot made it to #1! I knew you had it in you! 

se


----------



## davidsh

steve eddy said:


> Yay! Bigshot made it to #1! I knew you had it in you!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Bigshot is now officially likeable


----------



## Steve Eddy

davidsh said:


> Bigshot is now officially likeable




Some of us knew it all along. 

se


----------



## krismusic

steve eddy said:


> Some of us knew it all along.
> 
> se



+1


----------



## bigshot

Time for my Sally Field moment...


----------



## castleofargh

imackler said:


> When I had an o2 in the past, there was distortion with my dac on high gain with the HD650. This is an impedance problem w the source, right? What specs on a dac should I look for to not have distortion w an 02?


 

 the better question would be: why the hell did you use high gain for the hd650?
 I got unity gain on the lower setting of my O2 and I already tend to struggle getting out of the imbalanced lower part of the volume knob with the odac(I believe it outputs 2V but I never actually checked).
 pushing the knob at 12 o clock on the O2 I get some pretty loud music(more than what I actually ever listen to). 
 so that's with 1X gain instead of default 2.5X and I use replay gain so almost everything is quieter.
  
 in fact I switch to high gain when I use my sony A15. that's the only time when I do it. the A15 LO is 0.25V. now that's a reason to go high gain on the O2!


----------



## imackler

Thanks for all the answers! Here's some responses.



maverickronin said:


> When I had a pair of HD650s I found them fairly easy to drive.  Their high impedance would get a pretty clean signal out of most anything with a headphone jack, though the maximum volume might end up being limited.
> 
> A better place to start might be by asking what you didn't like using with your HD650s and why.




So I'm not a real science guy (as if you couldn't tell). I don't actually have an amp now... Kind of rebuilding. I know I've like the old headroom micro desktop, o2, sr71a, pico power, neco soundlab v3... Those have been favorites. I haven't like asgard, magni, e12, e9, e09k as much. Vali and valhalla were different. I can't remember when it was with the 600 or 650 though with those. I should have stuck w several of those. (I have no idea how subjective I've been!)




davidsh said:


> O2, Magni, the usual contenders




I was kind of looking at portable source and amp... I have a hd600 at work and hd650 at home; I'm never without my laptop so one portable answer financially makes sense...



cjl said:


> Why did you use high gain? I would think with a fairly high output voltage DAC, an O2 would be more than adequate on low gain to drive HD650s to earsplitting levels.
> 
> (and as maverickronin said, the O2 distorts if the product of the input level and the gain is too high, so if you have that problem, you can restructure the gain in the O2 by changing out some resistors, attenuate the input level a bit, or just use the O2 on low gain to avoid that issue)




I drank some koolaid about if you move past noon you should up the gain... I think it was because of classical recordings...




castleofargh said:


> the better question would be: why the hell did you use high gain for the hd650?
> I got unity gain on the lower setting of my O2 and I already tend to struggle getting out of the imbalanced lower part of the volume knob with the odac(I believe it outputs 2V but I never actually checked).
> pushing the knob at 12 o clock on the O2 I get some pretty loud music(more than what I actually ever listen to).
> so that's with 1X gain instead of default 2.5X and I use replay gain so almost everything is quieter.
> ...




See above.

Do you all have a go to dac recommendation besides odac? (Just checking if there is cheaper \better)

And is there a portable dap that measures well?

I've kind of got burned out and just want to land on some affordable answers that i don't need to worry about "oh this is better" or "your stuff sucks"... I've let it take the fun away and now i have a laptop w a bunch of flac files, a hd600, a hd650.... And a fiio x3... I'm kind of " meh" about. Supposedly it's better via lineout.


----------



## gikigill

Try the Cayin C5 with the Sennheiser 650. Pairs well and has heaps of power.


----------



## castleofargh

imackler said:


> I drank some koolaid about if you move past noon you should up the gain... I think it was because of classical recordings...
> 
> 
> Do you all have a go to dac recommendation besides odac? (Just checking if there is cheaper \better)
> ...


 
 I have no idea where that "past noon up the gain" comes from.
 I'm guessing it's one of those "we need headroom" stuff that somebody told to you, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in practice. if only because volume knobs aren't all the same and the attenuation at 12 o clock on one amp is unlikely to be the same as on another amp. making that kind of statement meaningless.
  
 to me most DACs are DACs. I went for the odac because it was fitting in the same box as the O2 and took less space. no other reason really. the main differences you will get are the maximum voltage output they have, and if plugged into USB, how well they handle it(some being very sensitive to the USB noises from the computer, others having limits when it comes to high sample rate, others needing a specific driver to work...) but else, even a cheap DAC can sound real good.
  
 portable stuff are obviously the cool stuff in practice, but they usually have less power than desktop stuff for obvious reason. they often also have lower overall specs.
 and about good measurements, some stuff measure pretty well, but with a given load only. so when plugged into an IEM they wouldn't be as good as when plugged into a 50ohm headphone. if you wish to use non portable headphones, going portable isn't really a great idea. the X3 is one of the most powerful DAP you can hope to get, a great many others will not have enough power to drive the hd650 loud. so you go back to needing an amp ^_^.
  
 now about the O2, most of the tests nwavguy conducted where done using a hd650, so it's really not a problem of power. there is no doubt that the O2 is ok to drive the hd650 pretty darn loud.
 as I said I'm pretty loud(more than I ever actually use) with the knob at 12 o clock and gain 1X .
 the O2 has default low gain at 2.5X so if fed by a 2V DAC, that's up to 5V, that's about 117db into a hd650. I don't know how loud imackler listens to music, but my guts are telling me it should be enough ^_^.
  
 so the problem is obviously what's feeding the O2 and not the O2 itself. and also the user mistaking the gain setting for a volume knob 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. as at least for the O2, the gain value should be set to compensate for a DAC being too weak. and not really to increase loudness into a headphone.
 using the FIIO X3's LO that's 1.7V going into the O2, with the 2.5X gain that's a maximum of 113db. so even that would be good to drive the HD650, and in fact we could get close to 112db using the X3 alone.
  
 Quote:


gikigill said:


> Try the Cayin C5 with the Sennheiser 650. Pairs well and has heaps of power.


 
 for the cayin I could never find max power output into 300 or 600ohm. having a super power at low impedance doesn't actually mean it will also be powerful into high impedance. I suspect it is, but I'm at a point in my audio life, if a manufacturer can't give me the values I need, I look somewhere else.
 I insist on this because I have a real life example with me. the fiio X1 and my leckerton amp. at low impedance the X1 is actually more powerful, but at 300ohm the leckerton is now the clear winner. that's why I ask for specs into several loads so often like an old ranting granny.


----------



## gikigill

People have tried the Cayin C5 including me with the 650 and the MadDogs, SZ2000 and other planars. It happily powered the 650 and can overdrive pretty much everything dynamic.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> Time for my Sally Field moment...


 
Ha ha! That is toe curling!


----------



## limpidglitch

imackler said:


> Do you all have a go to dac recommendation besides odac? (Just checking if there is cheaper \better)


 
  
 Won't the X3 also work as a USB DAC? 
 If you've already got one, you can't really beat that for price.


----------



## maverickronin

imackler said:


> Thanks for all the answers! Here's some responses.
> So I'm not a real science guy (as if you couldn't tell). I don't actually have an amp now... Kind of rebuilding. I know I've like the old headroom micro desktop, o2, sr71a, pico power, neco soundlab v3... Those have been favorites. I haven't like asgard, magni, e12, e9, e09k as much. Vali and valhalla were different. I can't remember when it was with the 600 or 650 though with those. I should have stuck w several of those. (I have no idea how subjective I've been!)





> I was kind of looking at portable source and amp... I have a hd600 at work and hd650 at home; I'm never without my laptop so one portable answer financially makes sense...





> I drank some koolaid about if you move past noon you should up the gain... I think it was because of classical recordings...
> See above.
> 
> Do you all have a go to dac recommendation besides odac? (Just checking if there is cheaper \better)
> ...


 
  
 If you're looking for a portable DAC/amp combo I'm a big fan of my Leckerton UHA-4.  It's super clean with the HD650s though you might find the the volume a bit limited.  The UHA-6S MKII and UHA760 will give give you more volume and have upgraded DAC sections as well.  I haven't head them myself though.
  
 I haven't kept up on DAPs much.  I'm still using a Clip Zip


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> If you're looking for a portable DAC/amp combo I'm a big fan of my Leckerton UHA-4.  It's super clean with the HD650s though you might find the the volume a bit limited.  The UHA-6S MKII and UHA760 will give give you more volume and have upgraded DAC sections as well.  I haven't head them myself though.
> 
> I haven't kept up on DAPs much.  I'm still using a Clip Zip


 
@imackler The Leckerton UHA-4 is very limited in output power, I doubt that one would get good results with either the HD600 or HD650. Their web page indicates no USB support for Android or iOS.
 I would take a look at the FiiO E18 it works with Android as well as iOS, etc. and has plenty more audio output power. It doesn't draw USB power so you won't need a powered USB Hub.
  
UHA-4 Max Output Power
 
 
 
16 ohms: 20 mW
 32 ohms: 40 mW
 100 ohms: 50 mW
 300 ohms: 15 mW


----------



## maverickronin

@StanD, that's still 109db with the HD650s...


----------



## imackler

I'm out of my league here... But using the spreadsheet at http://www.apexhifi.com/specs.html
  
 There seems to be a lot of difference between listening at 110db and 115db regarding how much power is required. 110db seems like 20mw would be enough for both HD600/HD650. But Lord Voldemort recommended 115db for audiophile recordings (I listen to lots of well-recorded classical). Wow... That extra 5db requires a ton more power.Wouldn't I need 53mw for the HD650 and 63 for the HD600? 
  
 (For the record, I never really listen to music loud.)
  
 Does it look like I'm doing this right? Do you agree that I might need 115db for audiophile recordings? 
  
 Thanks for all the help guys! I feel like the fog is lifting. I stayed up too late leading this section of the forum...and loved what I learned!


----------



## StanD

maverickronin said:


> @StanD, that's still 109db with the HD650s...


 
 NOW CORRECTED: misread the decimal points during calculations.
  
 15 mW on the HD650 will only get you about 109.5 dbSPL. The sensitivity of the HD650 is 103 dBSPL at 1V or 97.77 dB/mW
 Close but maybe not enough headroom.
 Although the E18 has far much more power at lower impedances, at 300 Ohms it can deliver almost 27 mW taking the HD650's to around 112 db SPL, IMO not bad. If you use lower impedance cans, then the gap in power is much more favoring the E18.
 If you don't need a DAC then the E18 Amp can kick out 93.7 mW at 300 Ohms which should deliver 117.5 dB SPL for the HD650's.


----------



## maverickronin

Looks good to me.  If you like to listen  to well recorded classical with plenty of dynamic range and like it loud then indeed,  the UHA-4 probably won't cut it. for you.
  
 I normally listen at lower volumes so I didn't have a problem using the UHA-4 with my HD650s (when I still had them anyway...).


----------



## stv014

stand said:


> 15 mW on the HD650 will only get you about 89.6 dbSPL. The sensitivity of the HD650 is 103 dBSPL at 1V or 97.77 dB/mW


 
  
 With 97.77 dB SPL at 1 mW, why would it be lower at 15 mW ? Also, 15 mW into 300 ohms is 2.12 V, at which 109 dB SPL seems to be correct.


----------



## StanD

stv014 said:


> With 97.77 dB SPL at 1 mW, why would it be lower at 15 mW ?


 
 Crap, I goofed up and misread the decimal point. Sorry guys. I'll go back and fix my post


----------



## imackler

Am I right to understand that unless a manufacturer tells how how much power there is into a certain load, there is no way to tell from its output into one load? For example, if they say 200mw into a 16ohm load, you can't extrapolate from that information what the output would be into a 300ohm load?


----------



## maverickronin

imackler said:


> Am I right to understand that unless a manufacturer tells how how much power there is into a certain load, there is no way to tell from its output into one load? For example, if they say 200mw into a 16ohm load, you can't extrapolate from that information what the output would be into a 300ohm load?


 
  
 You usually can't do that very reliably, at least from just one power rating.  There are to many other possible variables.


----------



## stv014

imackler said:


> Am I right to understand that unless a manufacturer tells how how much power there is into a certain load, there is no way to tell from its output into one load? For example, if they say 200mw into a 16ohm load, you can't extrapolate from that information what the output would be into a 300ohm load?


 
  
 The maximum output voltage an amplifier is capable of without clipping generally decreases at lower load impedance (due to factors like current limiting and output impedance). Thus, the extrapolated output (200 mW into 16 ohms = 1.79 V = 10.7 mW into 300 ohms) in your example would be a pessimistic estimate, as the real maximum could be somewhat higher than that by an unknown amount.


----------



## cel4145

I find it interesting that this discussion is placing so much reliability on manufacturer specs that have not been independently verified, given how often they have been found to be unreliable when it comes to audio equipment. Not that I don't do it. Just saying since this is the Skeptico Saloon


----------



## StanD

stv014 said:


> The maximum output voltage an amplifier is capable of without clipping generally decreases at lower load impedance (due to factors like current limiting and output impedance). Thus, the extrapolated output (200 mW into 16 ohms = 1.79 V = 10.7 mW into 300 ohms) in your example would be a pessimistic estimate, as the real maximum could be somewhat higher than that by an unknown amount.


 
 Sometimes even better, FiiO usually specs the Max Vp-p for their Amps or DAC/Amps. That's what I used to get the power at 300 Ohms.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

Anything change to how 'like' comments appear now on this forum?


----------



## imackler

stand said:


> Sometimes even better, FiiO usually specs the Max Vp-p for their Amps or DAC/Amps. That's what I used to get the power at 300 Ohms.


 
  
 The E12A is listed by Fiio as 10.3 Vp-p. How do I measure what the power would be to a 300ohm load? Is there a formula to use? 
  
 In some places, the E12A is only listed as recommended to 150ohm, but I think that may be marketing... The X3 is 8 Vp-p and its listed as up to 300 ohm. 
  
 Is there another spec to take into account?
  
 Thanks!


----------



## StanD

imackler said:


> The E12A is listed by Fiio as 10.3 Vp-p. How do I measure what the power would be to a 300ohm load? Is there a formula to use?
> 
> In some places, the E12A is only listed as recommended to 150ohm, but I think that may be marketing... The X3 is 8 Vp-p and its listed as up to 300 ohm.
> 
> ...


 
 I spec'd the E12 not E12A. Peak output voltage is 15 Vp-p. which  15 / 2  is the peak voltage multiply by 0.707 to get VRMS which is 5.3025 VRMS.
 VRMS = Vp-p/2 X 0.707
 Power = VRMS2/Impedance so 5.30252/300 is 0.0937216875 Watts or *93.7 mW at 300 Ohms*.
 The X3 should deliver about 26.7 mW at 300 Ohms at 8 Vp-p.


----------



## imackler

stand said:


> I spec'd the E12 not E12A. Peak output voltage is 15 Vp-p. which  15 / 2  is the peak voltage multiply by 0.707 to get VRMS which is 5.3025 VRMS.
> VRMS = Vp-p/2 X 0.707
> Power = VRMS2/Impedance so 5.30252/300 is 0.0937216875 Watts or *93.7 mW at 300 Ohms*.
> The X3 should deliver about 26.7 mW at 300 Ohms at 8 Vp-p.


 
  
 This is super helpful! But where does the .707 number come from? Is that the damping ratio?


----------



## StanD

imackler said:


> This is super helpful! But where does the .707 number come from? Is that the damping ratio?


 
 It's the Square Root of 2 divided by 2. Which is 0.70710678118654752440084436210485 if you want to be more precise.


----------



## StanD

Here's a link to a web page that calculates VRMS. I just Googled that up.
http://www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/Voltage-rms-calculator.php


----------



## castleofargh

imackler said:


> I'm out of my league here... But using the spreadsheet at http://www.apexhifi.com/specs.html
> 
> There seems to be a lot of difference between listening at 110db and 115db regarding how much power is required. 110db seems like 20mw would be enough for both HD600/HD650. But Lord Voldemort recommended 115db for audiophile recordings (I listen to lots of well-recorded classical). Wow... That extra 5db requires a ton more power.Wouldn't I need 53mw for the HD650 and 63 for the HD600?
> 
> ...


 

 you're right about nwavguy recommendations, but if you read it right, you see that 115db is his worst case scenario, not something he would do in real life. to get to 115 you need to listen about as loud as you can muster, while using to the most dynamic track you can find. even if the amp and headphone end up ok with that, your ears might not enjoy it for long. ^_^
 if you know you're not like analogsurviver trying to get your canon explosion from a headphone to actually sound as loud as in real life because that's how it was played, then it is safe to go with less than 115db as your needs and stick with 110 or even 105 instead. it's really all about you and how loud you listen to music.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> you're right about nwavguy recommendations, but if you read it right, you see that 115db is his worst case scenario, not something he would do in real life. to get to 115 you need to listen about as loud as you can muster, while using to the most dynamic track you can find. even if the amp and headphone end up ok with that, your ears might not enjoy it for long. ^_^
> if you know you're not like analogsurviver trying to get your canon explosion from a headphone to actually sound as loud as in real life because that's how it was played, then it is safe to go with less than 115db as your needs and stick with 110 or even 105 instead. it's really all about you and how loud you listen to music.


 
 Don't you just love the guys that think you can never have enough wattage. They want 4 or more Watts for headphones that'll hit 119 dBSPL at 1 W. What would happen if they listened to typical pop music that is heavily volume compressed and cranked the amp up all the way?


----------



## earthpeople

stand said:


> Don't you just love the guys that think you can never have enough wattage. They want 4 or more Watts for headphones that'll hit 119 dBSPL at 1 W. What would happen if they listened to typical pop music that is heavily volume compressed and cranked the amp up all the way?


----------



## bigshot

Nigel Tuftnell's amp goes to 11


----------



## StanD

Death by SPL.


----------



## cel4145

castleofargh said:


> you're right about nwavguy recommendations, but if you read it right, you see that 115db is his worst case scenario, not something he would do in real life. to get to 115 you need to listen about as loud as you can muster, while using to the most dynamic track you can find. even if the amp and headphone end up ok with that, your ears might not enjoy it for long. ^_^
> if you know you're not like analogsurviver trying to get your canon explosion from a headphone to actually sound as loud as in real life because that's how it was played, then it is safe to go with less than 115db as your needs and stick with 110 or even 105 instead. it's really all about you and how loud you listen to music.




+1

For movies, Dolby and THX reference levels for movies is 105db peaks from the speakers, with 115db from the subwoofer (because of the LFE channel). And that's extremely loud, and louder than many home theater systems are going to get. 

But I'd probably shoot for 110db based on amp calculations from manufacturer specs since I don't trust manufacturers not to be a bit overly optimistic when it comes to audio equipment (and that's saying it nicely).


----------



## bigshot

The problem with movies is that 5.1 spec for movies is 10 dB lower in the LFE channel than the sub channel in music SACDs in 5.1. I ended up just splitting the difference and music is a little too high in sub bass and movies are a little too low.


----------



## dprimary

I have to wonder how loud people listen to headphones. Even with a first generation iPod I could drive 600 ohm AKG K240 DF to levels high enough to cause hearing damage.


----------



## imackler

Have you skeptical headfiers ever heard a dac or amp that measured well and was appropriately powered for your headphone but didn't sound good? Can an amp sound bad that measures good? Is there ever a reason besides power requirements to get an external amp?

And do you think that everything that measures well sounds the same? Does the magni 1 and 2; e12diy w/ diff opamp/buffer combos; cirrus and wolfson dacs, all as examples sound the same, when compared to each other? Is there such a thing as a warm-sounding dac or amp if there is the only measurement differences are beyond the threshold of human hearing?

I've been appreciating all the feedback/interaction. I'm far more skeptical of the advertising machine than I am of you all  I'm in no way confrontational... Just hear to learn.


----------



## uchihaitachi

imackler said:


> Have you skeptical headfiers ever heard a dac or amp that measured well and was appropriately powered for your headphone but didn't sound good? Can an amp sound bad that measures good? Is there ever a reason besides power requirements to get an external amp?
> 
> And do you think that everything that measures well sounds the same? Does the magni 1 and 2; e12diy w/ diff opamp/buffer combos; cirrus and wolfson dacs, all as examples sound the same, when compared to each other? Is there such a thing as a warm-sounding dac or amp if there is the only measurement differences are beyond the threshold of human hearing?
> 
> I've been appreciating all the feedback/interaction. I'm far more skeptical of the advertising machine than I am of you all  I'm in no way confrontational... Just hear to learn.



http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/high-end-pc-audio,review-32894.html


----------



## StanD

imackler said:


> Have you skeptical headfiers ever heard a dac or amp that measured well and was appropriately powered for your headphone but didn't sound good? Can an amp sound bad that measures good? Is there ever a reason besides power requirements to get an external amp?
> 
> And do you think that everything that measures well sounds the same? Does the magni 1 and 2; e12diy w/ diff opamp/buffer combos; cirrus and wolfson dacs, all as examples sound the same, when compared to each other? Is there such a thing as a warm-sounding dac or amp if there is the only measurement differences are beyond the threshold of human hearing?
> 
> ...


 
 Unless the electronic device is designed poorly, built badly or used improperly most/all gear sounds the same. If one uses an amp with a load it is not designed for, or requires more power than it can deliver, one cannot expect proper results. Keep in mind, "An audiophile and his/her money is easily separated."


----------



## maverickronin

imackler said:


> Have you skeptical headfiers ever heard a dac or amp that measured well and was appropriately powered for your headphone but didn't sound good? Can an amp sound bad that measures good?


 
  
 Pretty much no.  I've never reliably heard this myself and I've never seen any evidence of anyone demonstrating this under appropriately controlled listening conditions.
  


imackler said:


> Is there ever a reason besides power requirements to get an external amp?


 
  
 Kind of.  There's a little bit more than strictly power requirements.
  
 Balanced Armature IEMs are a good example.  Most will go ear-splittingly loud from just about about anything but there are reasons besides power they can benefit from a proper amp.  One is noise floor.  Since many are super sensitive you may need an amp with a lower noise floor to get rid of background hiss.  Then there's output impedance.  Small amounts of output impedance can affect the FR of BA IEMs much more noticeably than other kinds of headphones.  Also some amplifiers may have capacitor coupled outputs which can cause the bass to roll off early with lower impedance headphones but work just fine with higher impedance models.
  
 All of these things are relatively basic electrical theory and easily measured though.  Nothing magical or unknown
  


imackler said:


> And do you think that everything that measures well sounds the same? Does the magni 1 and 2; e12diy w/ diff opamp/buffer combos; cirrus and wolfson dacs, all as examples sound the same, when compared to each other?


 
  
 Pretty much yeah.  The only times that I've reliably heard differences between amps/DACs/etc also corresponded to measurable differences that were within known thresholds of audibility.  As I mentioned above, no one has properly demonstrated those kinds of differences either.
  
 OTOH, it switching certain opamps into certain circuits may make measurable differences.  Usually this will be for the worse (unless the original was particularly poor quality or unsuited for the job) but it could me measurable and/or audible under some circumstances.  I would think the most common case of an actual audible difference would be someone switching an expensive high bandwidth opamp into a circuit designed for a lower bandwidth opamp, resulting in oscillation and high frequency distortion.
  


imackler said:


> Is there such a thing as a warm-sounding dac or amp if there is the only measurement differences are beyond the threshold of human hearing?


 
  
 Assuming all measurable differences are beyond the limits of human hearing then no, it's not really possible.
  
 OTOH, it's just barely possible that something with a few incomplete measurements might measure extremely well in one published specification but abysmally in another metric that the manufacturer leaves out and such a difference might account for such a phenomena.
  


imackler said:


> I've been appreciating all the feedback/interaction. I'm far more skeptical of the advertising machine than I am of you all
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think it's not _just _the advertising machine.  I think that a lot of people/companies selling the more obvious snake oil know that it's BS but plenty of others really do believe it.  Especially with thing like amps and DACs which are far more plausible than for example, $150 power cables.  It's not hard to see why they'd believe it either.  It's very easy for humans to fool themselves into believing things which aren't true.  Exception bias, conformation bias, and a host of other cognitive errors are the default mode of human thought.  Everyone falls prey to them to some degree and the scientific method along with a skeptical mindset are the only tools which can mitigate such errors.


----------



## lamode

imackler said:


> Have you skeptical headfiers ever heard a dac or amp that measured well and was appropriately powered for your headphone but didn't sound good?


 
  
 This really depends on what the measurements are exactly. Power, noise, FR, distortion, rise/decay?
 Do you know the amp's power into YOUR load, or is it a very different load?
 Are the amp power specs true RMS or some marketing gimmick like PMPO?
 Is the distortion calculated with just one frequency and at one output level, or across the whole audible spectrum?
 etc
  
 You get the idea. Some equipment can have very limited and selective specs designed to hide the flaws.
  
 Then there is the issue of equipment which just does not work well with other equipment due to impedance matching, etc, even if they measure well individually.


----------



## StanD

lamode said:


> This really depends on what the measurements are exactly. Power, noise, FR, distortion, rise/decay?
> Do you know the amp's power into YOUR load, or is it a very different load?
> Are the amp power specs true RMS or some marketing gimmick like PMPO?
> Is the distortion calculated with just one frequency and at one output level, or across the whole audible spectrum?
> ...


 
 That fakery can be found when buying very inexpensive stuff on fleaBay. Most but not all reputable Mfrs. don't get into much of that game. Schiit is value priced and conservatively spec'd. Heck it's always Caveat Emptor.


----------



## bigshot

I have to say, I am very disappointed with this forum lately. I have to plow through tons of BS to get to the interesting stuff. That's not because of a single dolt. It's because too many people engage the dolts and pump them up. Now there's blood in the water and jerks that trolled us before are coming back to do it again. These guys wouldn't survive if people just brushed them off. They feed off the attention you people are giving them, and when one of them gets everyone talking, they all jump in.
  
 I'm going to start unsubscribing threads that go off the rails. It may end up that there are very few threads for me to pay attention to any more unless the Sound Science regulars get their act together and stop letting themselves be used as tools by needy narcissists.


----------



## bigshot

Blocked: Stereocilia, Analogsurviver, Julian67
  
 am I missing anyone?


----------



## dprimary

imackler said:


> Have you skeptical headfiers ever heard a dac or amp that measured well and was appropriately powered for your headphone but didn't sound good? Can an amp sound bad that measures good? Is there ever a reason besides power requirements to get an external amp?
> 
> And do you think that everything that measures well sounds the same? Does the magni 1 and 2; e12diy w/ diff opamp/buffer combos; cirrus and wolfson dacs, all as examples sound the same, when compared to each other? Is there such a thing as a warm-sounding dac or amp if there is the only measurement differences are beyond the threshold of human hearing?
> 
> ...


 

 Most published specs are fairly meaningless. On a DAC if the frequency response varies beyond a fraction of dB it must be the worst DAC ever made. 
  
 I would like to see an output across impedance chart on any amp. It is about impossible to predict what and amp can output anymore. At the very least there should be a level at 4 impedances so you get some idea of the trend.
  
 Do they all sound the same? I have to say no, but they are within 99.9% of each other. I notice when doing blind testing of something like encoding if I change the DAC during the test the artifact I notice one DAC may not be there on the other. Which one is right? who knows, I don't really care. Often those artifacts really did happen in the room during the recording. I have heard plenty of acoustical distortions in life. 
  
 Does the acoustic guitar really create a beat frequency against a soft decay of a cymbal? Unless you caught it during the recording and went in and listened in the room you have no way of knowing. Sometime it really is there and you have move the microphone , the player, or change the playing.


----------



## StanD

bigshot said:


> Blocked: Stereocilia, Analogsurviver, Julian67
> 
> am I missing anyone?


 
 Looks like a good start.


----------



## castleofargh

dprimary said:


> Most published specs are fairly meaningless. On a DAC if the frequency response varies beyond a fraction of dB it must be the worst DAC ever made.
> 
> I would like to see an output across impedance chart on any amp. It is about impossible to predict what and amp can output anymore. At the very least there should be a level at 4 impedances so you get some idea of the trend.
> 
> ...


 
 that!
 I'm the spec beggar of headfi, I always look like I'm asking for something excessive each time I want to get the output into a few different loads. if they don't want to give those specs, then tell headphone manufacturers to stop making headphones with different impedances! that would solve my problem, just like I don't care for the impedance output of a DAC, because it will always be plugged into a several Kohm of the amp. we don't have to be afraid of a 8ohm amp input so those numbers are not important.
 but with headphones going from almost 4ohm on the SE846 iem, to 600 ohm on many fullsize headphones, any device that will be plugged into a headphone should be required to give at least those numbers, and then some more.
 just like a CIEM manufacturer should provide FR and impedance response of their products. it's not trade secret, it's half of the thing we're paying for.
  
 and that's not even talking about how badly the provided specs are expressed or how much trust we can put into them. in 2015, I would expect a centralized measurement center responsible to give legitimate specs for all amps DACs, DAPs, headphones...
 if the industry was even remotely concerned by quality, that's obviously how things would be.
  
 the level of obscurantism in audio is appalling. and sadly the reason for it is clear. most manufacturers would lose their customers if something like this existed, because they don't actually deliver quality, only good marketing.


----------



## uchihaitachi

Are BA IEMs with higher and higher number of drivers a mere marketing gimmick?
  
 If IEM manufacturers create from the same driver company (e.g. Knowles), can you hypothetically recreate all 'sound signatures' with only a couple of drivers?


----------



## castleofargh

uchihaitachi said:


> Are BA IEMs with higher and higher number of drivers a mere marketing gimmick?
> 
> If IEM manufacturers create from the same driver company (e.g. Knowles), can you hypothetically recreate all 'sound signatures' with only a couple of drivers?


 

 IMO they're mostly convenient. they're small, they let you build IEMs that can have good isolation(in fact they need to if you want any bass). and with 2crossovers+ a damping filter for each driver if needed, it's pretty easy to tune the IEM to the response you want without working too much on making the perfect inner shape for the air to move.
 but as far as I can tell, it's not making IEMs to really have better frequency extension than one good dynamic driver. in fact they struggle a lot with trebles on multi BAs. and the crossovers are a problem, not a big one when well done, but they certainly don't increase fidelity. almost everybody agrees that 2crossovers should be the maximum.
  
 and of course if you don't have a low impedance source, the sound can be pretty messed up.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Not a gimmick. I was able to try out Noble's full line of IEMs up to and including the kaiser. The difference in experiencing the music is astounding. There could be a point though where the number of useful drivers pleateus, not sure where though or which IEM this is an example off


----------



## uchihaitachi

kamijoismyhero said:


> Not a gimmick. I was able to try out Noble's full line of IEMs up to and including the kaiser. The difference in experiencing the music is astounding. There could be a point though where the number of useful drivers pleateus, not sure where though or which IEM this is an example off


 
 That could just have been due to the sound signature preferences. 
  
 I want to know whether the science validates such claims.


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> Are BA IEMs with higher and higher number of drivers a mere marketing gimmick?
> 
> If IEM manufacturers create from the same driver company (e.g. Knowles), can you hypothetically recreate all 'sound signatures' with only a couple of drivers?


 
  
  
 I think the "driver wars" are mostly a marketing gimmick but there are benefits to crossovers and multiple drivers.
  
 You can get adequate frequency response out of a single driver as the ER4 demonstrates.  It's FR is more extended than most multi driver models.  It's downfall though is distortion at higher volumes.  Adding a crossover and extra drivers can keep the distortion from increasing at higher volumes and/or reduce distortion at lower volumes.  Cramming in as many drivers as possible without thinking it though doesn't help much though.


----------



## uchihaitachi

maverickronin said:


> I think the "driver wars" are mostly a marketing gimmick but there are benefits to crossovers and multiple drivers.
> 
> You can get adequate frequency response out of a single driver as the ER4 demonstrates.  It's FR is more extended than most multi driver models.  It's downfall though is distortion at higher volumes.  Adding a crossover and extra drivers can keep the distortion from increasing at higher volumes and/or reduce distortion at lower volumes.  Cramming in as many drivers as possible without thinking it though doesn't help much though.


 
 So where would you say the 'sweet spot' for driver numbers lie?


----------



## Steve Eddy

uchihaitachi said:


> So where would you say the 'sweet spot' for driver numbers lie?




Lots! 



se


----------



## StanD

Now it's hybrid IEMs. Last year I picked up a Sony XBA-H3 that has a whopping 16mm Dynamic driver for bass and 2 BA drivers. It's 40 Ohms and very easy to drive. Not to mention, it sounds pretty good for an IEM.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

So guys, what do you recommend I do if I have a method of tuning headphones that makes an objective night and day difference as well as glowingly positive subjective evaluations, but the method (sorta kinda methodical though it may be, though I'll be damned if I can put the words together to fully explain the process) is not science-approved in the sense that it takes its cues from subjective listening rather than instrumental measurements (and I don't see how this can be changed)?

Who should I take this up with to promote the method? Or am I doomed to fall through the cracks between the subjectivists and the objectivists? 

https://joe0bloggs.wordpress.com/


----------



## NLNH

maverickronin said:


> I think it's not _just _the advertising machine.  I think that a lot of people/companies selling the more obvious snake oil know that it's BS but plenty of others really do believe it.  Especially with thing like amps and DACs which are far more plausible than for example, $150 power cables.  It's not hard to see why they'd believe it either.  It's very easy for humans to fool themselves into believing things which aren't true.  Exception bias, conformation bias, and a host of other cognitive errors are the default mode of human thought.  Everyone falls prey to them to some degree and the scientific method along with a skeptical mindset are the only tools which can mitigate such errors.


 
  
Some are making $1000 bucks iem with a fancy housing and a DD driver inside which claims to have new tech, while the ''designer'; could be just a random guy who hype, hype and hype.
n% mark up and rebrand from China stuff, if you say 150 bucks power cords are snake oil, no, we got some big snakes out there





  




  
 ^ lets enjoy these, stay foolish and happy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 One side note, I believe that many gears are underpriced, with the current gdp and the trend how gears are priced now and in the 90s it is not too bad actually : ( it is just the enthusiasm and professionalism fading


----------



## RRod

joe bloggs said:


> So guys, what do you recommend I do if I have a method of tuning headphones that makes an objective night and day difference as well as glowingly positive subjective evaluations, but the method (sorta kinda methodical though it may be, though I'll be damned if I can put the words together to fully explain the process) is not science-approved in the sense that it takes its cues from subjective listening rather than instrumental measurements (and I don't see how this can be changed)?
> 
> Who should I take this up with to promote the method? Or am I doomed to fall through the cracks between the subjectivists and the objectivists?
> 
> ...


 
  
 If this thread is any indication, it's hardly a settled matter on how to judge headphones, so I say start up a thread on your method!


----------



## StanD

joe bloggs said:


> So guys, what do you recommend I do if I have a method of tuning headphones that makes an objective night and day difference as well as glowingly positive subjective evaluations, but the method (sorta kinda methodical though it may be, though I'll be damned if I can put the words together to fully explain the process) is not science-approved in the sense that it takes its cues from subjective listening rather than instrumental measurements (and I don't see how this can be changed)?
> 
> Who should I take this up with to promote the method? Or am I doomed to fall through the cracks between the subjectivists and the objectivists?
> 
> ...


 
 I read the head page of your Blog and liked it. Start a thread and expect a beating or two or three.........


----------



## Steve Eddy

joe bloggs said:


> So guys, what do you recommend I do if I have a method of tuning headphones that makes an objective night and day difference as well as glowingly positive subjective evaluations, but the method (sorta kinda methodical though it may be, though I'll be damned if I can put the words together to fully explain the process) is not science-approved in the sense that it takes its cues from subjective listening rather than instrumental measurements (and I don't see how this can be changed)?
> 
> Who should I take this up with to promote the method? Or am I doomed to fall through the cracks between the subjectivists and the objectivists?
> 
> https://joe0bloggs.wordpress.com/




Have you read Sean Olive's work on this subject?

se


----------



## uchihaitachi

steve eddy said:


> Have you read Sean Olive's work on this subject?
> 
> se


 
 Is that the blind testing of people sonic preferences? Wasn't the result that most people prefer most accurate sounding headphones. By accurate I mean real to life?


----------



## Steve Eddy

uchihaitachi said:


> Is that the blind testing of people sonic preferences? Wasn't the result that most people prefer most accurate sounding headphones. By accurate I mean real to life?




Yes. But when measuring headphones on a dummy head, you don't get a flat frequency response. So Sean has come up with a "reference curve" for headphone frequency response that results in a "more accurate" perceived sound.

se


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

uchihaitachi said:


> That could just have been due to the sound signature preferences.
> 
> I want to know whether the science validates such claims.




I don't think so. I focused my attention first on the balance of the frequency response, then the detailing of music I was listening to. The biggest example is going from the 6 to Kaiser. Hard to explain since this is an anti-subjective subforum and I won't go further on the difference in sound. Have you even tried multiple driver set-ups?


----------



## castleofargh

steve eddy said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > So guys, what do you recommend I do if I have a method of tuning headphones that makes an objective night and day difference as well as glowingly positive subjective evaluations, but the method (sorta kinda methodical though it may be, though I'll be damned if I can put the words together to fully explain the process) is not science-approved in the sense that it takes its cues from subjective listening rather than instrumental measurements (and I don't see how this can be changed)?
> ...


 

 I personally feel that it's the closest to what I like, but I wouldn't call it neutral just yet. and how we put an IEM or a headphone(more for small drivers) on hour head+ maybe some particular resonance in our messed up ears, that will tend to make for at least some matter of deviation in the high medium/trebles. those changes have little chances to be always right with a general target.
  
 if Joe's solution is what he explains in his tutorial on headfi, then I have very much abused it for the last year.
 with the risk of talking about something entirely different and making a fool of myself (wouldn't be the first time ^_^), here are the limitations/requirements I see with going at it by ear:
 -you need the headphone you plan to EQ to have at least the same kind of frequency extension or even better, less roll off than the one you plan to "copy". not a real problem but it requires a little research beforehand.
 -you need to have a model that can output the sound you like. so you pretty much need to have already found the sound you find best. but if you happen to be in love with the signature of your speakers, all is good.
 - it's really hard to be precise in the very low and very high frequencies. while getting something ok rapidly and repeatedly in the mids, setting a 40hz right is another matter for me as I often end up with up to 4db deviations between 2 tries. and same for anything after 12 or 13khz for me(I can still hear up to 16khz at normal listening level). those are not really important frequency regions as far as music is concerned, but it might stop from getting the last audible differences from the target.


----------



## uchihaitachi

kamijoismyhero said:


> I don't think so. I focused my attention first on the balance of the frequency response, then the detailing of music I was listening to. The biggest example is going from the 6 to Kaiser. Hard to explain since this is an anti-subjective subforum and I won't go further on the difference in sound. Have you even tried multiple driver set-ups?


 
 I own and have tried countless multiple driver set-ups. 
  
 Most 'detailed' IEMS just tend to have upper frequency spikes resulting in more detail being hired. Likewise, the Noble 6 has boosted bass and rolled off treble. The Kaiser less so, so I wouldn't be surprised by your claims.
  
 I don't want anecdotal claims. I don't trust my ears nor yours well enough to make such critical evaluations on IEM detailing sound quality based on driver counts.
  
 That's why I am asking for somebody with expertise in the scientific know how of how these drivers work...


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Then this forum would be the worst place to ask such questions. All you get its snake oil blah blah blah. If you have enough experience with many different IEM with different counts of drivers then that should be enough evidence whether or not multiple drivers matter. I have yet to encounter an engineer that creates IEM that bothers with this forum. At least the guys in Noble are approachable for some technical questions.

BTW I didn't hear a roll off in the 6, the frequency response of the 6 and the kaiser were pretty much equal when I tested them.


----------



## bigshot

Inner detail (not just boosted high end) is a function of balanced frequency response most often. A balanced response removes any masking that covers part of the spectrum. The other possible culprit is distortion, but in modern equipment, that is much less of a problem than response imbalances.


----------



## maverickronin

uchihaitachi said:


> So where would you say the 'sweet spot' for driver numbers lie?


 
  
 I don't know if anyone could tell you where the sweet spot is.  My guess would be after 3-4 drivers and a 3 way crossover  you run into serious diminishing returns and/or cause more problems than you'd solve but that's just a gut feeling since I'm not aware of a large enough database of IEM measurements to make those kinds of comparisons.


----------



## uchihaitachi

kamijoismyhero said:


> Then this forum would be the worst place to ask such questions. All you get its snake oil blah blah blah. If you have enough experience with many different IEM with different counts of drivers then that should be enough evidence whether or not multiple drivers matter. I have yet to encounter an engineer that creates IEM that bothers with this forum. At least the guys in Noble are approachable for some technical questions.
> 
> BTW I didn't hear a roll off in the 6, the frequency response of the 6 and the kaiser were pretty much equal when I tested them.




This would be the only thread where objective discussion would occur with regards to my question.

Please stop referring back to your anecdotal evidence time and time again. It's really unhelpful. 

Nobody has said it's snake oil. There have already been several responses highlighting possible explanations, trade offs and so on.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

uchihaitachi said:


> Likewise, the Noble 6 has boosted bass and rolled off treble. The Kaiser less so, so I wouldn't be surprised by your claims.


 
 speak for youself


----------



## uchihaitachi

kamijoismyhero said:


> speak for youself




Er no. Firstly the product description mentions the sonic design as such. Secondly as an owner of the K10 and having talked to the creator of the IEMs, aka Dr Moulton, there is supposed to be more treble presence in the K10. The N6 is more similar to the Heir 8A, which I also own.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

Well go ask Moulton if more drivers is a gimmick then. Even Moulton doesn't hang out here and there were multiple threads he could have offered insights on the tech.


----------



## dprimary

steve eddy said:


> Lots!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 LOL hard to fit in IEM. A modern touring sound system dwarfs the Dead's wall of sound driver counts with around 1200 in the main PA and around a half million watts. If anyone figured out the amount of processing power in system the government might ban exporting them to some countries.


----------



## dazzerfong

kamijoismyhero said:


> Well go ask Moulton if more drivers is a gimmick then. Even Moulton doesn't hang out here and there were multiple threads he could have offered insights on the tech.


 
 So, can we conclude that multiple driver IEM's aren't a gimmick _if they are designed properly_ (ie. minimise crossover). That way, everyone's happy.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dprimary said:


> LOL hard to fit in IEM. A modern touring sound system dwarfs the Dead's wall of sound driver counts with around 1200 in the main PA and around a half million watts. If anyone figured out the amount of processing power in system the government might ban exporting them to some countries.




Hehehe. I know. Just that in modern systems, the drivers aren't so dazzlingly on display as in this old Wall of Sound system. They're usually hidden away inside folded horns.

And as for fitting inside IEMs, who cares about IEMs? Give me surface area, baby! 

Peace. 

se


----------



## Joe Bloggs

steve eddy said:


> uchihaitachi said:
> 
> 
> > Is that the blind testing of people sonic preferences? Wasn't the result that most people prefer most accurate sounding headphones. By accurate I mean real to life?
> ...




My thoughts on that (quoted from my blog):



> The problem, as far as I can see, is that we’re still not very good at simulating the mechanics and acoustics of a real human ear using dummy ears or dummy heads. And probing a real ear is also a non-starter as the acoustics of any probe location other than the eardrum itself is different. Even if someone were to sacrifice oneself for science and audio and replace one’s eardrums with microphones, said microphones wouldn’t match the acoustic impedance response of one’s eardrums. Massaging flawed measurement data with compensation curves will not yield accurate results either, as the required compensation curve would change with each model of earphones, its acoustic coupling with the artificial ear being different from that with the real thing, this difference being unique for each model of earphones.
> 
> Feel free to correct me on any of the above–I’m not used to “bashing science” myself.


----------



## Steve Eddy

joe bloggs said:


> My thoughts on that (quoted from my blog):
> 
> The problem, as far as I can see, is that we’re still not very good at simulating the mechanics and acoustics of a real human ear using dummy ears or dummy heads. And probing a real ear is also a non-starter as the acoustics of any probe location other than the eardrum itself is different. Even if someone were to sacrifice oneself for science and audio and replace one’s eardrums with microphones, said microphones wouldn’t match the acoustic impedance response of one’s eardrums. Massaging flawed measurement data with compensation curves will not yield accurate results either, as the required compensation curve would change with each model of earphones, its acoustic coupling with the artificial ear being different from that with the real thing, this difference being unique for each model of earphones.
> 
> Feel free to correct me on any of the above–I’m not used to “bashing science” myself.




Some of this I can agree with. For example, I never quite understood why measurements should be made on a dummy head with the diaphragm essentially where the eardrum would be. At least not for headphones where people's pinnae and ear canals are all different. Seems to me you'd want the diaphragm just outside the pinnae to capture the sound field before it reached the pinnae. I mean, you don't measure loudspeaker performance using a dummy head with the microphone diaphragm where the eardrum would be. Sure, with a headphone you need to replicate the relatively small cavity that the drivers are operating into, but not everything else.

se


----------



## miceblue

Ah, I shall revisit this thread again. : )

What exactly do these numbers represent?
http://www.dynamicrange.de/sites/default/files/Measuring%20DR%20ENv3.pdf
http://dr.loudness-war.info/


I usually define absolute dynamic range as the difference between the softest and the loudest points. That is quite literally how dynamic the music is and your amplifier would need to be able to produce sound from the softest part to the loudest part without clipping and with the proper slew rate if the music demands it.

For calculation purposes though, that's not a practical metric since software usually can't identify/tell you the quietest points within a given music piece unless there's complete silence like in some synthesised music. Using a track's RMS and peak values (thus crest factor) are much more indicative of the dynamic range for this purpose. The RMS value represents the continuous/sustained load on an amplifier, whereas the peak represents a sudden power surge requirement from the amp. This makes complete sense to me for determining a music track's dynamic range, how much change is there in the music from the average level? The crest factor is also commonly used for speaker amps to determine how powerful of an amp you'll need. A VU meter is also indicative of the RMS values and average volume level of a given music piece for loudness monitoring.

The DR utility does something completely different from anything above and I don't see how it can be indicative of a given music track. The largest 20% of the RMS values doesn't tell you anything useful for either the music track nor the requirements for an amplifier; it isn't indicative of how loud the music track is from the peak values for a dynamic range calculation and it makes the track seem artificially louder than it really is, as evident by the much lower RMS values determined by Audacity, Musicscope, and Foobar's ReplayGain values.

From the spec sheet posted above, 132300 samples are analysed in a 3-second block for a 44.1 kHz sampled file for each channel. For those 132300 analysed points, one RMS and one peak value are determined. The RMS calculation isn't really an RMS value to begin with since the radicand is multiplied by 2 when RMS calculations don't have that factor, no? So it's erroneous right there and is already inaccurate. If you have a 3-minute song, that means 60 RMS and 60 peak values are generated (one for each 3-second interval) for each channel, which means a blknum of 60. The RMS-sum is just the total RMS value (single number) for the whole channel, which is based on the inaccuratly calculated RMS values. To get the top 20% values, they divided the total RMS's radicand by 0.2 * blknum (12 in this case).

Say you have these made-up 60 values from the RMS calculation:

```
Ten values of -6.7
Ten values of -7.3
Ten values of -6.4
Ten values of -5.8
Ten values of -6.9
Five values of -5.3
Five values of -5.0
```
Sum of Squares = 2469.35
Sum of Squares / 12 = 205.78
Top 20% Total RMS value = sqrt(Sum of Squares / 12) = 14.35

With our simple numbers, we can double-check this.
Reordering the values from smallest to largest:

```
Ten values of -7.3
Ten values of -6.9
Ten values of -6.7
Ten values of -6.4
Ten values of -5.8
Five values of -5.3
Five values of -5.0
```
Obviously the top 12 values representing the top 20% RMS values are the five -5.0 values, the five -5.3 values, and two of the -5.8 values.

Sum of Squares for top 20% = 332.73
Top 20% Total RMS value = sqrt(Sum of Squares for top 20%) = 18.24

18.24 ≠ 14.35

So even the "top 20%" RMS values they calculate are inaccurate from the samples they take.


The spec sheet says:


> Using the RMS-sum in (4) results in the overall RMS of the upper 20% of the input material, eliminating the contribution of small Peaks. This method also ensures that the resulting DR value is virtually independent from the block size used (3s in this example) as long as this is small compared to the overall input material length.
> 
> Limiting the DR-measurement to the upper 20% of the blocks with maximum RMS is a compromise that allows to somewhat compare a wide variety of different material in a quantitative way. Also in highly dynamic Material only the loudest parts, which usually best reflect the processing of the material (compression etc.), contribute to the DR measurement.




What would be an example of when small peaks would greatly alter the calculated RMS value in such a way that the true RMS value isn't good enough or indicative of the whole track? I guess I just don't understand why the DR utility uses the highest 20% of calculated values. Literally no other sources I've seen and read use this convention and instead use the crest factor for dynamic range determination, which makes sense to use unless you can provide a concrete example of when the DR utility would be a better convention to use.




To me, the crest factor (peak minus RMS value in dB) is a far better indication of the dynamic range than what the DR utility outputs.
For example, here's a song from a video game soundtrack that I really like:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZl8WKO0FV8[/video]


Here's its corresponding decibel waveform in Audacity:


The light-blue area represents the loudness of the song, or the sustained/RMS values. If you just eyeball the approximate average level of this area, the left channel looks to be at around -13 or -14 dBFS and the right at around -14 or -14.5 dBFS. Subjectively, I hear that the right channel seems to have less stuff going on, so it makes sense that the right channel has a slightly quieter average volume level/average RMS value.

You can use Audacity to objectively determine the average of the RMS values by doing a "Contrast" analysis.
http://manual.audacityteam.org/o/man/contrast.html


Indeed the right channel is quieter based on the average RMS value it calculated (-13.7 dBFS vs -14.3 dBFS).


For peak values, you can use Audacity's "Amplify" (without clipping) effect. This will bring the song to as loud as it can get, 0 dBFS, without clipping. Both the left and right channels can only be increased by 0.1 dB for this particular song, so that means the peak values for each channel are -0.1 dBFS.


From the average RMS values and the peak values, you can determine the crest factor for each channel.
Left: -0.1 dBFS peak - -13.7 dBFS RMS = 13.6 dB
Right: -0.1 dBFS peak - -14.3 dBFS RMS = 14.2 dB

We can average the two crest factors to get the crest factor for the whole song: 13.9 dB

So this represents how much variation the song has between its average loudness level and its peak levels.


What does the DR utility output?

```
Left Right

Peak Value: -0.10 dB --- -0.10 dB 
Avg RMS: -10.77 dB --- -11.38 dB 
DR channel: 8.95 dB --- 9.87 dB 
Official DR Value: DR9
```

That doesn't seem right to me....


----------



## uchihaitachi

kamijoismyhero said:


> Well go ask Moulton if more drivers is a gimmick then. Even Moulton doesn't hang out here and there were multiple threads he could have offered insights on the tech.




He is an industry insider and will obviously have limitations on what he can disclose. 

Gimmicks aside, I merely wanted to understand how driver counts impact performance from an objective standpoint which you clearly fail to comprehend.


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

I only needed a fair amount of multi-driver IEMs to sample and conclude multiple drivers can be used to enhance performance. For someone who has 
  


uchihaitachi said:


> I own and have tried *countless *multiple driver set-ups.


 
  
 A technical explanation of driver count affecting performance would be useless if you yourself can't form a conclusion whether or not it can impact performance. You have had a lot of evidence, a statistical advantage compared to my experience in IEMs, at hand to answer your own question but it seems you can't comprehend such evidence. It would be pointless for an expert on the subject to explain further details to you.
  
  


uchihaitachi said:


> He is an industry insider and will obviously have limitations on what he can disclose.
> 
> Gimmicks aside, I merely wanted to understand how driver counts impact performance from an objective standpoint which you clearly fail to comprehend.


  


 As I have said before this is the worst place to ask such question. People that know how to implement multi-BA IEM wont bother with this forum. Go ahead and wait for one though, I merely offered an answer from my experience and you called it unhelpful since it was anecdotal. Then you post this bit


uchihaitachi said:


> Er no. Firstly *the product description mentions the sonic design as such*. Secondly as an owner of the K10 and having talked to the creator of the IEMs, aka Dr Moulton, there is *supposed to be more treble presence* in the K10. The N6 is more similar to the Heir 8A, which I also own.


  
 If Moulton himself didn't give you any objective evidence to support that statement, then you are a hypocrite for telling me anecdotal claims are unhelpful. If you don't trust 10K cable performance claims from manufacturer due to lack objective evidence, then you shouldn't trust Moulton's either.
  
 Of course, I would trust his claims myself but for different, and less hypocritical, reasons than yours.


  
  


dazzerfong said:


> So, can we conclude that multiple driver IEM's aren't a gimmick _if they are designed properly_ (ie. minimise crossover). That way, everyone's happy.


 
 You may but **** that dude.


----------



## dazzerfong

kamijoismyhero said:


> You may but **** that dude.


 
 He's asking a genuine question, and all you're doing is saying 'yeah it's better coz I said so.' He's asking if so, _why: _if you don't know why, don't go all medieval on anyone who offers an alternative opinion. An anecdote isn't much of use, frankly when he's trying to understand _why:_
  


> That's why I am asking for somebody with expertise in the scientific know how of how these drivers work..


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *miceblue* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> From the spec sheet posted above, 132300 samples are analysed in a 3-second block for a 44.1 kHz sampled file for each channel. For those 132300 analysed points, one RMS and one peak value are determined. The RMS calculation isn't really an RMS value to begin with since the radicand is multiplied by 2 when RMS calculations don't have that factor, no? So it's erroneous right there and is already inaccurate.


 
  
 The multiplication by 2 is there so that the RMS level calculated for a 0 dBFS sine (rather than square) wave will be 0 dBFS. Without that, it would be -3.01 dBFS.
  
 In other words, if the entire input is a simple sine wave at a constant level, the calculated dynamic range will be 0 dB. But it will be 0 dB even if only 20% or more of the input is a constant sine wave, and the rest of it is silence. Therefore, it is a pessimistic algorithm, because it will rate the track as having poor dynamic range if any substantial part of it looks like being heavily compressed. It also ignores a high peak in a single block due to using only the second highest peak value. If you take 5 minutes of high quality classical music, and paste a couple minutes of compressed metal or pop at the end of it, then the reported dynamic range will be based mostly on the latter, where the 20% highest RMS values are likely to be found.
  


> Obviously the top 12 values representing the top 20% RMS values are the five -5.0 values, the five -5.3 values, and two of the -5.8 values.
> 
> Sum of Squares for top 20% = 332.73
> Top 20% Total RMS value = sqrt(Sum of Squares for top 20%) = 18.24
> ...


 
  
 The RMS sum is not based on the dB values, but rather on the power, which is the correct way to combine the RMS level for multiple blocks. That is, the correct overall RMS for the 12 blocks is:
  
 10 * log10((10^(-5 / 10) * 5 + 10^(-5.3 / 10) * 5 + 10^(-5.8 / 10) * 2) / 12) = -5.25 dB


----------



## uchihaitachi

kamijoismyhero said:


> A technical explanation of driver count affecting performance would be useless if you yourself can't form a conclusion whether or not it can impact performance. You have had a lot of evidence, a statistical advantage compared to my experience in IEMs, at hand to answer your own question but it seems you can't comprehend such evidence. It would be pointless for an expert on the subject to explain further details to you.
> 
> 
> *If you don't have the scientific know how to explain, then don't stop me from asking. If anything, sound science is the best place for objective knowledge, and I know that there are several individuals here who are more than qualified to offer explanations or suggest some form of debate. Otherwise, you could maybe suggest, other sources that I could refer to so that I can educate myself about the workings of balanced armature IEMs. *
> ...


----------



## KamijoIsMyHero

dazzerfong said:


> He's asking a genuine question, and all you're doing is saying 'yeah it's better coz I said so.' He's asking if so, _why: _if you don't know why, don't go all medieval on anyone who offers an alternative opinion. An anecdotal isn't much of use, frankly when he's trying to understand _why:_




You can't get medieval on an internet forum...it isn't like I am trying to convince him or that my answer is a end all, be all. I just offered a genuine answer as I am skeptical that multi-drivers can't offer a better performance than a single dynamic driver.


----------



## uchihaitachi

kamijoismyhero said:


> You can't get medieval on an internet forum...it isn't like I am trying to convince him or that my answer is a end all, be all. I just offered a genuine answer as I am skeptical that multi-drivers can't offer a better performance than a single dynamic driver.




Nobody said that multi drivers don't offer a better performance. I queried whether it was a gimmick and if not how it could be superior in an objective sense. From an engineer's perspective. Yet you kept on insisting it was superior by ear which is essentially completely irrelevant to what I was querying about. Then you proceeded to brand me a hypocrite, and insinuated incompetence, as I should know better from my hearing experiences and shouldn't bother asking.


----------



## dazzerfong

kamijoismyhero said:


> You can't get medieval on an internet forum...it isn't like I am trying to convince him or that my answer is a end all, be all. I just offered a genuine answer as I am skeptical that multi-drivers can't offer a better performance than a single dynamic driver.


 
 Again, your answer is an _opinion_. We're not interested in that. 


> Who are you to decide that it would be pointless for me to ask an expert? I have an engineering degree from MIT, and I believe I would be more than qualified to understand the material if somebody explained it to me.


 
 If you don't mind me asking, what field? If electrical, please help me in microelectronics: I'm getting slaughtered!


----------



## uchihaitachi

dazzerfong said:


> Again, your answer is an _opinion_. We're not interested in that.
> If you don't mind me asking, what field? If electrical, please help me in microelectronics: I'm getting slaughtered!




Thermodynamics!! Sorry!!! I was slaughtered myself!


----------



## Ruben123

AK380
 Who bites?


----------



## uchihaitachi

ruben123 said:


> AK380
> Who bites?


 
 The AK240 had significantly worse measurements that ipods lol... And this was WITHOUT load.


----------



## krismusic

uchihaitachi said:


> The AK240 had significantly worse measurements that ipods lol... And this was WITHOUT load.



!!!


----------



## imackler

_Confession_:
  
 After nearly seven years on these forums, I've begun to wonder if I've been duped, by others and myself. I _think _I've subconsciously felt, as I've turned the volume up to slightly higher levels in ABing, that the ability to turn the volume pot on an amp _less _means that the sound is _better_. The closer I get to 3 o'clock, the more I've questioned the amps ability to drive the headphone at the same sound quality. Thus my previous approval of high gain over low gain and of more powerful amps over less. I think my feeling (perhaps mirrored by many on this forum, though not this thread) is that the the further I twist the volume pot, the less sound quality there is is and that the quicker it gets loud, the better the sound quality is. Of course, there are other psychological influences, such as the culticstatus of the designer, the cost, the impressions I've read, nationalistic sympathies, etc. 
  
 I would love to ABX an E12 and a Pico Power (volume-matched) and see if I could hear a difference.


----------



## castleofargh

imackler said:


> _Confession_:
> 
> After nearly seven years on these forums, I've begun to wonder if I've been duped, by others and myself. I _think _I've subconsciously felt, as I've turned the volume up to slightly higher levels in ABing, that the ability to turn the volume pot on an amp _less _means that the sound is _better_. The closer I get to 3 o'clock, the more I've questioned the amps ability to drive the headphone at the same sound quality. Thus my previous approval of high gain over low gain and of more powerful amps over less. I think my feeling (perhaps mirrored by many on this forum, though not this thread) is that the the further I twist the volume pot, the less sound quality there is is and that the quicker it gets loud, the better the sound quality is. Of course, there are other psychological influences, such as the culticstatus of the designer, the cost, the impressions I've read, nationalistic sympathies, etc.
> 
> I would love to ABX an E12 and a Pico Power (volume-matched) and see if I could hear a difference.


 

 it's a very well known effect of humans listening to sound. we use to say "louder is better". that's really how it alway feels(to a point where it's just too loud). and that's the very reason why we all insist soooooo much about volume matching before making an AB comparison. because else, and the guy trying to sell us something at the shop knows all about it, the louder will almost always sound the best to us.
  
 I fool myself like that all the time, I get a new DAP, try it like a DAP, have fun, or not, think the bass is this or the soundstage is that. then I volume match it to another DAP, use a switch, make sure to use an IEM that is not going to be affected by impedance, and boom headshot, they usually sound almost perfectly identical. when I myself thought they were different from my uncontrolled listening session!
 that's what so many people can't understand/accept. they trust themselves and just can't fathom to question anything they believe to be right. but do those guys do ABX? do they buy a switch? do they get something to match levels? of course not, we all are advocating for something blind, us for the test to be blind, while they do their best to keep themselves blind ^_^.
  
 and high gain is almost always a bad choice. when the gain is a real one, it should be used to match the source feeding the amp, not the headphone.  and when it's just a glorified loudness setting, like on portable DAPs, then the lower value usually has the same of slightly better measurements and should be used only when more loudness is really needed.
  
 edit: a nice way to see how loudness affects us, you just listen to your music, rise the volume for just a a sec or 2, and go back to the inithial loudness. for a time the sound won't be as good as it was before the test. going +5 then -5 doesn't end up feeling the same as doing nothing when it is the same. that's the kind of mess a human brain and the automatic dampening of our ear can do.


----------



## aphex27

Who gives a crap about all this stuff..I'm listening to the last Sufjan album, probably the worst recorded album of all time, and it brings me to tears without fail...I don't wanna listen to a Chesky (with all respect) bland jazz record because it has 200000 kHz mics..I still wanna listen to Sufjan recording himself on his iPhone


----------



## StanD

imackler said:


> _Confession_:
> 
> After nearly seven years on these forums, I've begun to wonder if I've been duped, by others and myself. I _think _I've subconsciously felt, as I've turned the volume up to slightly higher levels in ABing, that the ability to turn the volume pot on an amp _less _means that the sound is _better_. The closer I get to 3 o'clock, the more I've questioned the amps ability to drive the headphone at the same sound quality. Thus my previous approval of high gain over low gain and of more powerful amps over less. I think my feeling (perhaps mirrored by many on this forum, though not this thread) is that the the further I twist the volume pot, the less sound quality there is is and that the quicker it gets loud, the better the sound quality is. Of course, there are other psychological influences, such as the culticstatus of the designer, the cost, the impressions I've read, nationalistic sympathies, etc.
> 
> I would love to ABX an E12 and a Pico Power (volume-matched) and see if I could hear a difference.


 
 Google "Equal Loudness Contour" and "Fletcher-Munson"


----------



## StanD

aphex27 said:


> Who gives a crap about all this stuff..I'm listening to the last Sufjan album, probably the worst recorded album of all time, and it brings me to tears without fail...I don't wanna listen to a Chesky (with all respect) bland jazz record because it has 200000 kHz mics..I still wanna listen to Sufjan recording himself on his iPhone


 
 Then why are you even posting here?


----------



## miceblue

stv014 said:


> The multiplication by 2 is there so that the RMS level calculated for a 0 dBFS sine (rather than square) wave will be 0 dBFS. Without that, it would be -3.01 dBFS.
> 
> In other words, if the entire input is a simple sine wave at a constant level, the calculated dynamic range will be 0 dB. But it will be 0 dB even if only 20% or more of the input is a constant sine wave, and the rest of it is silence. Therefore, it is a pessimistic algorithm, because it will rate the track as having poor dynamic range if any substantial part of it looks like being heavily compressed. It also ignores a high peak in a single block due to using only the second highest peak value. If you take 5 minutes of high quality classical music, and paste a couple minutes of compressed metal or pop at the end of it, then the reported dynamic range will be based mostly on the latter, where the 20% highest RMS values are likely to be found.
> 
> ...



Interesting. I see. Thank you for clarifying that.

I know this is the SS section, but what would you say is an accurate measure of dynamic range? Obviously a pure sine wave is going to sound like 1 note to us, which might be the reason why the DR utility gives that a 0 rating, but music isn't just a simple sine wave. I have some chiptune music that I listen to on occasion and the DR rating is often around 3-7 (which is not unexpected for this music genre).

This particular song has a DR5 rating, and a crest factor of 6.9 I think (-9.4 dBFS RMS, -1.0 dBFS peak). If a perfect sine wave is the 0 point for the DR number, then the crest factor for this song divided by the crest factor for a sine wave (1.414) actually gets really close to the DR rating (4.8). These calculations are also a lot easier for me to understand than the math done in the DR specs.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPaJLOIRJLI[/video]



I guess I've been been using the decibel units by mistake instead of the power all this time. When calculating power levels from dBFS values, what units would power be in this case? And how do I express the crest factor in terms of a decibel?

10 * log10(1.414) = 1.5 dB, but the actual value is twice that. Why is that so? I usually see 10 * log10(P1/P0), but sometimes I also see 20 * log10(P1/P0); when is 20 * used instead of 10 *?








[rule]
If I want to create a headphone measuring setup, what would be the most accurate way to do so?
From what I've seen there are two setups to do it:

 Use two microphones that measure flat and place them about a head's spacing apart; then just put the headphones over them and take measurements (the ideal headphone response in this case would be a flat line since it's just the headphone's sound being put into the microphones)
 Use two microphones that measure flat and place them about a head's spacing apart with silicone ears; then just put the headphones over them and take measurements (the ideal headphone response in this case would roughly resemble the head-related transfer function due to the pinnae amplification)

Setup #1 to me seems the most accurate because the HRTF from setup #2 can be variable depending on the ear's shape, material, size, etc. What would be the advantage of setup #2 and why is it that places like Innerfidelity and Golden Ears use a measurement setup similar to this instead of setup #1 where we know that if a headphone measures flat, it will follow the HRTF curve just like how flat-measuring speakers would be applied to our ears?


----------



## RRod

I compared crest factor vs the DR rating for my whole collection a while back, and as you'd expect they correlate decently well. The tracks off the trend had exactly the kinds of behavior you'd expect to yield such a result. For instance, if a track has only one large peak, the crest factor can come out high but the DR rating will come out low (since it uses the 2nd highest peak value).


----------



## miceblue

rrod said:


> I compared crest factor vs the DR rating for my whole collection a while back, and as you'd expect they correlate decently well. The tracks off the trend had exactly the kinds of behavior you'd expect to yield such a result. For instance, if a track has only one large peak, the crest factor can come out high but the DR rating will come out low (since it uses the 2nd highest peak value).



I just did a quick calculation for AC/DC's "Back in Black" that I have from their 2003 remastered CD.

The track has a lot of clipping, so Audacity says the peak is 0 dBFS, obviously. The DR utility agrees. 10^(0/10) = 1

Audacity then says the track's RMS value is -12.65 dBFS. The DR utility says it's -9.07 dBFS. 10^(-12.65/10) = 0.054325

Crest factor = peak / RMS = 1 / 0.054325 = 18.4077

Crest factor / crest factor full scale sine wave = 18.4077 / 1.414 = 13.02

A full-scale sine wave has a crest factor of 1.99? (0 dBFS peak, -3.0 dBFS RMS). 18.4077 / 1.99 = 9.22, which is a lot closer. Now I'm just confused though because in my previous post, I used 1.414 and I got the same DR rating. >.>

DR utility says it's DR8.


In this case, what would be a better indication of the track's dynamic range?


----------



## RRod

miceblue said:


> I just did a quick calculation for AC/DC's "Back in Black" that I have from their 2003 remastered CD.
> 
> The track has a lot of clipping, so Audacity says the peak is 0 dBFS, obviously. The DR utility agrees. 10^(0/10) = 1
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think these measurements are best used to compare different masters of the same piece, rather than as absolute measures (especially given that they can disagree on the assessment of certain tracks). Here's the graph I got of DR rating versus log10(crest) for what part of my collection I've ripped (haven't made the log-scale ticks work yet, sorry):
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwmVtb5IwniEV2JkQXloLVd5ZnM/view?usp=sharing


----------



## castleofargh

yeah I wouldn't take DR as a an actual measurement of dynamic. the aim is more to give a general idea and help avoid overly compressed releases of one album thank to the website. it's useful, but it's not the best thing there is to measure actual dynamic. not that actual dynamic is in itself a perfect tool to say if a song is dynamic, it could just have a few very long quiet passages before going back to brickwalling and the absolute dynamic would look great.
 I find that looking at the track in audacity or anything like that(I use s(M)exoscope in foobar for fast check), is a better teller of how brickwalled a track was.


----------



## bigshot

The application of dynamics is a creative decision and should be up to the performers and engineers.


----------



## miceblue

rrod said:


> I think these measurements are best used to compare different masters of the same piece, rather than as absolute measures (especially given that they can disagree on the assessment of certain tracks). Here's the graph I got of DR rating versus log10(crest) for what part of my collection I've ripped (haven't made the log-scale ticks work yet, sorry):
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwmVtb5IwniEV2JkQXloLVd5ZnM/view?usp=sharing



Wow, that's quite an interesting mapping you have! I wonder what r value you would get if you drew a linear line through that data.
How long did it take you to go through all of your music?


I only recently got thinking about a track's dynamic range measurement because I'm interested in calculating how much power an amplifier would need to provide from the track's RMS value to the track's peak, which happen to relate to the crest factor.

Furthermore, I'm interested in calculating how much power an amplifier would need to provide to get a quiet track A to sound as loud as loud track B. These calculations might be useful for determining what kind of power your amp would need in a practical situation.

e.g. I'm listening to a loud track with an average loudness of around -18.7 dBFS (0 dBFS peaks) and I switch to a track in my playlist that's fairly quiet at -32.65 average dBFS (-9.6 dBFS average peaks, which is a 23.05 dB difference). How much more power would my amp need to get the quiet track to sound as loud as the louder one?

For volume differences:
-18.7 dBFS - -32.65 dBFS= 13.96 dB difference in volume (RMS)
10^(13.96/10) = 24.89

For volume and peak differences
13.96 dB volume + 23.05 dB peaks = 37.01 dB total
10^(37.01/10) = 5023.43

So the amplifier would need to output 24.89 times the power output to get the quieter track to sound as loud as the louder one if I understand this correctly, or 5023.43 times the power output to cover both the volume difference and the peaks of the track.

Let's say I'm listening to the HE-560 (43 ohm, 0.330 Vrms to reach 90 dB SPL) with an OPPO HA-2 DAC/amp (300 mW max, 3 Vrms max, 136.931 mA max). If I listen to the louder track above and an SPL device says the headphones are outputting 69 dB SPL, the HE-560 would need 0.020 mW of power (0.029 Vrms, 0.684 mA). If I then switch to the quieter track, I have to turn the volume knob, obviously, to get it to sound as loud as the louder track. From the calculations above, that's 24.89 times the power output, or 0.722 mW, which the HA-2 can provide. Covering peaks, I would need 5023.43 times the power output or 145.68 mW (2.5 Vrms, 39.39 mA), which the HA-2 can provide still but it's reaching its maximum potential.


Subjectively, I have done a similar listening session but without an SPL meter so it's not totally accurate. I'm assuming 69 dB SPL is around my average listening level because I listened to a calibrated system at a local meet and I was averaging 75-80 dB SPL with an open-back headphone in a somewhat quiet-ish room with some chatter in the background. Anyway, with the HE-560 on the HA-2, I was on high gain and about volume level 2.5/5 on the volume knob. I could actually listen to the quiet track at maximum volume, but the average volume level was too loud for my preferences; I wasn't able to detect any clipping in the brief time that I listened to it though.





......okay then. That turned out to be a longer ramble than I thought. I was just thinking out loud there. Are these calculations even valid in the first place? XD


----------



## stv014

miceblue said:


> This particular song has a DR5 rating, and a crest factor of 6.9 I think (-9.4 dBFS RMS, -1.0 dBFS peak). If a perfect sine wave is the 0 point for the DR number, then the crest factor for this song divided by the crest factor for a sine wave (1.414) actually gets really close to the DR rating (4.8). These calculations are also a lot easier for me to understand than the math done in the DR specs.


 
  
 Actually, you would need to subtract 3.01 from the dB value, rather than divide it by sqrt(2), so it is 6.9 - 3.01 = 3.89 dB. However, the overall RMS level of this track seems to be in fact -6.9 dBFS referenced to a full scale sine wave, and the peak is obviously 0 dBFS as it is clipped, so the adjustment is not needed.
  


miceblue said:


> I know this is the SS section, but what would you say is an accurate measure of dynamic range?


 
  
 For music, it really depends on what you intend to use the measured value for. The purpose of the DR rating is primarily to show the amount of peak limiting or "brickwalling" applied to the track. It is not a reliable measure of the overall loudness, nor the the required DAC/amplifier/etc. dynamic range for transparent reproduction.
  


> Originally Posted by *miceblue* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Setup #1 to me seems the most accurate because the HRTF from setup #2 can be variable depending on the ear's shape, material, size, etc. What would be the advantage of setup #2 and why is it that places like Innerfidelity and Golden Ears use a measurement setup similar to this instead of setup #1 where we know that if a headphone measures flat, it will follow the HRTF curve just like how flat-measuring speakers would be applied to our ears?


 
   
Measuring the frequency response of headphones as if they were loudspeakers does not give an accurate frequency response, because the effect of actually wearing them is different from just the HRTF in free air. For example, without a seal, headphones are not capable of an extended bass response. That is only one of the issues, but it already shows that setup #1 is not accurate, and the acoustic properties of the head and ears need to be simulated somehow, i.e. using a HATS like Inner Fidelity.


----------



## stv014

miceblue said:


> I only recently got thinking about a track's dynamic range measurement because I'm interested in calculating how much power an amplifier would need to provide from the track's RMS value to the track's peak, which happen to relate to the crest factor.
> 
> Furthermore, I'm interested in calculating how much power an amplifier would need to provide to get a quiet track A to sound as loud as loud track B. These calculations might be useful for determining what kind of power your amp would need in a practical situation.


 
  
 For matching the loudness of tracks, it is best to use ReplayGain, as it was designed specifically for this purpose. The relative increase in power needed to play the quiet track as loud as the loud one without clipping can then be calculated from the ratio of the peak levels after ReplayGain has been applied (as the loudness-matched quiet track will now have the higher peak level). Of course, the amplifier also needs to have enough gain if the peaks are well under 0 dBFS.


----------



## stv014

castleofargh said:


> yeah I wouldn't take DR as a an actual measurement of dynamic. the aim is more to give a general idea and help avoid overly compressed releases of one album thank to the website. it's useful, but it's not the best thing there is to measure actual dynamic. not that actual dynamic is in itself a perfect tool to say if a song is dynamic, it could just have a few very long quiet passages before going back to brickwalling and the absolute dynamic would look great.


 
  
 That is why the DR rating is based on the loudest (in terms of RMS level) 20% of blocks. If at least 20% of a track is brickwalled, then it will basically ignore the rest, and report only the dynamic range of the compressed parts.


----------



## stv014

miceblue said:


> I guess I've been been using the decibel units by mistake instead of the power all this time. When calculating power levels from dBFS values, what units would power be in this case? And how do I express the crest factor in terms of a decibel?
> 
> 10 * log10(1.414) = 1.5 dB, but the actual value is twice that. Why is that so? I usually see 10 * log10(P1/P0), but sometimes I also see 20 * log10(P1/P0); when is 20 * used instead of 10 *?


 

 Power levels are in watts, but the actual output power in W (which depends on a number of other factors) does not matter here, as we ultimately only need the _ratio_ of the peak and the RMS level.
  
 In any case, when you convert between dB and W (power, or squared sample values), the multiplier is 10, and for dB and voltage/current (i.e. the actual sample levels in digital audio) it is 20. So, for a sine wave it is either 10 * log10(2) (half power relative to a square wave of the same peak level), or 20 * log10(1.4142), and in both cases the result is 3.01 dB.


----------



## RRod

miceblue said:


> Wow, that's quite an interesting mapping you have! I wonder what r value you would get if you drew a linear line through that data.
> How long did it take you to go through all of your music?


 
  
 I let it run overnight. The R² is 0.73.


----------



## cjl

miceblue said:


> Wow, that's quite an interesting mapping you have! I wonder what r value you would get if you drew a linear line through that data.
> How long did it take you to go through all of your music?
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Why are you saying that the volume would be 13.96dB different? If you want them to sound as loud as each other, the volume difference is 0, since they're the same volume. You'll need more power for the higher peaks, and you'll need more gain to get the same output level from a lower input level, but the power required for the RMS volume won't change.


----------



## miceblue

stv014 said:


> Actually, you would need to subtract 3.01 from the dB value, rather than divide it by sqrt(2), so it is 6.9 - 3.01 = 3.89 dB. However, the overall RMS level of this track seems to be in fact -6.9 dBFS referenced to a full scale sine wave, and the peak is obviously 0 dBFS as it is clipped, so the adjustment is not needed.
> 
> 
> Measuring the frequency response of headphones as if they were loudspeakers does not give an accurate frequency response, because the effect of actually wearing them is different from just the HRTF in free air. For example, without a seal, headphones are not capable of an extended bass response. That is only one of the issues, but it already shows that setup #1 is not accurate, and the acoustic properties of the head and ears need to be simulated somehow, i.e. using a HATS like Inner Fidelity.



Say I have a cylindrical tube that has a top/bottom surface area that's the same circumference of a typical headphone, and I have flat-measuring microphones on said surfaces. If I get a good seal around the tube, maybe use some weatherstrip foam to help with that, wouldn't the measurements be fairly accurate? Flat-tuned speakers produce a flat frequency response from a flat-frequency response microphone. If headphones produce a flat frequency response from a flat-frequency microphone, why would that be inaccurate? As you mentioned, the setup would have to account for the properties of the head and ears, but that could be applied to the flat response could it not? The HRTF is produced as a direct result of those properties when an otherwise flat-measuring speaker is played; can't the HRTF also be produced by those same properties when an otherwise flat-measuring headphone is played? In one instance the head is absent, in the other it isn't; both setups would be using the same speakers (or headphones in this case).






stv014 said:


> For matching the loudness of tracks, it is best to use ReplayGain, as it was designed specifically for this purpose. The relative increase in power needed to play the quiet track as loud as the loud one without clipping can then be calculated from the ratio of the peak levels after ReplayGain has been applied (as the loudness-matched quiet track will now have the higher peak level). Of course, the amplifier also needs to have enough gain if the peaks are well under 0 dBFS.



True, but in OS X, the Audirvana Plus media player doesn't support ReplayGain, nor does my iPhone.







cjl said:


> Why are you saying that the volume would be 13.96dB different? If you want them to sound as loud as each other, the volume difference is 0, since they're the same volume. You'll need more power for the higher peaks, and you'll need more gain to get the same output level from a lower input level, but the power required for the RMS volume won't change.



But what if I listen to a loud track and then I switch to a quiet track? The difference in volume is obviously there so the volume in terms of SPL per se isn't the same. I'm trying to calculate how much more power output an amp would need to provide to get that quieter track to sound as loud as the louder track in terms of SPL. Gain has nothing to do with it I think since I can use a 1.0x gain amp for both cases and for the quieter track I would simply just need to turn the volume knob, and hence power output no? That's always been the case for me with the Objective 2 at least. I have never found the need to use 2.5x gain or higher.


----------



## cjl

miceblue said:


> But what if I listen to a loud track and then I switch to a quiet track? The difference in volume is obviously there so the volume in terms of SPL per se isn't the same. I'm trying to calculate how much more power output an amp would need to provide to get that quieter track to sound as loud as the louder track in terms of SPL. Gain has nothing to do with it I think since I can use a 1.0x gain amp for both cases and for the quieter track I would simply just need to turn the volume knob, and hence power output no? That's always been the case for me with the Objective 2 at least. I have never found the need to use 2.5x gain or higher.


 
 The volume knob adjusts gain - power is determined by the signal amplitude and the load being driven. When you switch to the quieter track, the power output by the amp will decrease, and by increasing the gain by turning up the volume, you are bringing the power back up to the same level it was before. For a given pair of headphones, the same power will produce about the same SPL, so if something sounds quieter, the amp is delivering less power. Now, if your quiet track has peaks that approach 0dBFS, your amp will need more power because the peaks are farther above the average level than they would be on a "loud" track, so if you set the average to be the same, the peaks will be more demanding. However, simply taking a track and dropping its level by 20dB (and then turning your amp up 20dB to compensate) won't demand any more power from the amp than before (but your amp will need to be higher gain).


----------



## Steve Eddy

cjl said:


> The volume knob adjusts gain - power is determined by the signal amplitude and the load being driven.




Pardon me while pick this nit.

Typically, gain is fixed. The volume knob just attenuates the incoming signal, and the amplifier's fixed gain is applied to that.

Ok, proceed. 

se


----------



## cjl

steve eddy said:


> Pardon me while pick this nit.
> 
> Typically, gain is fixed. The volume knob just attenuates the incoming signal, and the amplifier's fixed gain is applied to that.
> 
> ...


 

 Depends on how you define gain, really. I'm defining it as Vout/Vin, and not really caring what happens in the intermediate steps. You're correct about how it is frequently implemented though.


----------



## Steve Eddy

cjl said:


> Depends on how you define gain, really. I'm defining it as Vout/Vin, and not really caring what happens in the intermediate steps. You're correct about how it is frequently implemented though.




Like I said, I was just picking a nit, that's all.

se


----------



## bigshot

If I have enough vin I got plenty of vout-o-roonie!


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> If I have enough vin I got plenty of vout-o-roonie!




HA!

se


----------



## miceblue

steve eddy said:


> cjl said:
> 
> 
> > The volume knob adjusts gain - power is determined by the signal amplitude and the load being driven.
> ...



Yeah that's what I thought too. Usually the gain is fixed at, say 2.5x in the Objective 2. Adjusting the volume knob wouldn't adjust the 2.5x gain, but the gain switch will. So now I'm a bit confused when cjl says the volume knob adjust the gain.
Vout/Vin = gain

Volume knob in a low position:
2.5 V / 1.0 V = 2.5

Volume knob in a higher position:
5 V / 2.0 V = 2.5

5 V > 2.5 V = more power
2.5 == 2.5 same gain



Volume knob in a low position, low gain:
2.5 V / 1.0 V = 2.5

Volume knob in the same low position, high gain:
5.0 V / 1.0 V = 5.0

5.0 > 2.5 V = more power
5.0 > 2.5 = more gain

I almost never touch the gain button/switch on an amplifier; usually the lowest gain setting on a given setup is all that I need.




I do see the point cjl is trying to make though. If I play a loud song and switch to a quiet song, the song itself is quieter, so the input signal to the amp, and thus the output, will be smaller accordingly. 

The question is then, how can I predict how much I would need to turn the volume knob to output the same power, and thus SPL from the used speakers/headphones, to match that of the louder track (without using ReplayGain)? Earlier I modeled a specific situation for the OPPO HA-2 driving a HiFiMAN HE-560 in a practical scenario. My preliminary calculations seemed to fit my subjective testing, but the model may have been incorrect from the start since I assumed that with a given volume knob position, the amp would output the same power regardless of the input signal (loud to quiet track in this case).


----------



## Steve Eddy

miceblue said:


> Yeah that's what I thought too. Usually the gain is fixed at, say 2.5x in the Objective 2. Adjusting the volume knob wouldn't adjust the 2.5x gain, but the gain switch will. So now I'm a bit confused when cjl says the volume knob adjust the gain.




If you just look at an amplifier as a "black box" with an input and output, you can look at it either way. I was just speaking to how it's actually implemented in a real amplifier, i.e. the gain is fixed and the volume control just attenuated the incoming signal.




> The question is then, how can I predict how much I would need to turn the volume knob to output the same power, and thus SPL from the used speakers/headphones, to match that of the louder track (without using ReplayGain)? Earlier I modeled a specific situation for the OPPO HA-2 driving a HiFiMAN HE-560 in a practical scenario. My preliminary calculations seemed to fit my subjective testing, but the model may have been incorrect from the start since I assumed that with a given volume knob position, the amp would output the same power regardless of the input signal (loud to quiet track in this case).




With the volume control in a given position, the amp will still only output power depending on the level of the input signal. If the input signal is lower, output power will be lower.

Without something like ReplayGain, no way to predict it unless you just adjust volume by ear and note the posupition of the volume knob for each song.

se


----------



## miceblue

steve eddy said:


> With the volume control in a given position, the amp will still only output power depending on the level of the input signal. If the input signal is lower, output power will be lower.
> 
> Without something like ReplayGain, no way to predict it unless you just adjust volume by ear and note the posupition of the volume knob for each song.
> 
> se



Hm......darn.

Still without ReplayGain, is there a way to predict how much power an amp would output provided that you have the songs' RMS values, the amp's gain (gain as in an op-amp gain, R2/R1 + 1), as well as the load the amp is driving (i.e. headphone impedance)? *also assuming the amp's output impedance is negligible*


----------



## castleofargh

you're looking too much into it when you apparently have no idea how loud you might go when you're listening. so you're trying to be super precise starting from a value you don't have. using dynamic values of tracks that might not even represent how you listen. I also went with some matter of guessing, but not as much IMO(well at least I hope).
  
 I went at it the other way around. I used some measurements saying that the fiio X1 was pretty much steady in voltage from 32 to 600ohm and decided with no way to check it out that it would also be around that value into the 4000something ohm input in my laptop using a male to male jack cable. I felt safe using that as after all, as long as it's between 1 and 2V I would be wrong by less than 3db picking 1.5v as the value. but I can't really be sure the X1 doesn't strangely collapses with that load. it sounded fine but that's all I can say. the specs seem to show that it has more troubles with current into low loads than keeping it up in volts into high loads. I hope I was right.
  
 I used a MC5 for several days making sure to take note of the volume setting I used, I tried inside, outside, near cars(but they do isolate greatly so it doesn't change too much). and I ended up with a maximum volume setting. I then played a 1khz test tone(tried with some noise too), measured with a free RTA software the voltage/db variation between max output and the setting I had. still assuming I was in the 1.5V area maxed out on the X1 (a multimeter could be nice one day).
 now I know a voltage somehow and turn it into db with the MC5 specs.(the test tone was some db down, not recorded at 0db, so I compensated for it beforehand).
 I ended up just slightly above 105db with my mess. trying the same but going relatively loud on purpose(some loudness I could listen to but realy not for more than a song), I ended up at 114db, when the usual value suggested for amps is 115db... I'm half happy, half furious.
 add to that +/6db if the X1 is actually somewhere between 0.75v and 3V when maxed out into my laptop, I'm guessing it's a pretty safe bet and 120db should be the absolute worst case scenario ever using the most dynamic song, playing it the loudest, and making the most estimation mistakes.
 and more realistically, I would need 99 to 111db max.
  
 now the perk of my way, it's me using my DAP in real life with my real music and keeping the highest value I used. and what's best, the songs are not going above 0db anytime soon so I don't really have to care about the dynamic or how many db down the track is recorded.
  
 now the problem is to know if we would listen at the same loudness with different headphones of different signatures. you might need to take the FR into account a little. but apart from that, you end up with an estimated listening loudness so you can check the needs of any headphone.
  
  
  
  
  
 else I thought about estimating an average listening level one way or another, and just add 23db as that's the headroom for the EBU R128. it's the biggest headroom so far (it was like 14db for old replay gain) and I do feel like it's working great so that might be a way to rapidly get in the ballpark of your needs. with your measured RMS last page at a meeting reaching up to 80db, that's 103db peaks for normal listening, 113db for subjectively twice as loud. no drama and we always seem to end up in the same zone.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

castleofargh said:


> you're looking too much into it when you apparently have no idea how loud you might go when you're listening. so you're trying to be super precise starting from a value you don't have. using dynamic values of tracks that might not even represent how you listen. I also went with some matter of guessing, but not as much IMO(well at least I hope).
> 
> .....




...Or you could learn to listen for the effects of distortion. True distortion is anything but a vague feeling of "this doesn't sound like it's being driven to its full potential..."

Start with sine tones at different frequencies with near 0dBFS magnitude. Peg the volume of foobar and the system to max and adjust the output gain of foobar to positive until you hear clipping (turning down the volume at the DAC / amp of course).


Using the pop-out peak meter (which displays above 0dBFS, unlike the toolbar peak meter, check whether the signal is above 0dBFS and if so how far above. If you start to hear distortion starting exactly above 0dBFS you're doing good. Otherwise, your DAC/amp combo does not play cleanly up to full digital scale and you may want to keep your digital volume below 0dBFS.

Now try reducing system volume from max until you get comfortable travel on the volume knob of your DAC / amp and repeat the experiment. It should definitely only clip above 0dBFS on foobar now.

Now try playing some familiar piece of music through foobar and repeat--adjusting the gain until you start hitting past 0dB at peaks. At what point do you hear obvious distortion? What does the "in-between zone" sound like? Does it correspond at all to those uneasy feelings of "not enough power" you were getting?


----------



## Steve Eddy

miceblue said:


> Hm......darn.
> 
> Still without ReplayGain, is there a way to predict how much power an amp would output provided that you have the songs' RMS values, the amp's gain (gain as in an op-amp gain, R2/R1 + 1), as well as the load the amp is driving (i.e. headphone impedance)? *also assuming the amp's output impedance is negligible*




Sure. You'd just have to know how much attenuation the volume control was providing at each position, and what the gain of the amplifier is, and then it's just simple math.

That would be pretty easy for linear attenuation (i.e. attenuation would be 50% or 6 dB at the middle position). But we perceive loudness somewhat logarithmically, so volume controls for audio typically aren't linear. Here's a graph for some audio taper volume controls. A linear taper would be a straight line from 0,0 to 100,100. But as you can see, a given rotation of the knob doesn't have a linear relationship to the amount of attenuation. So basically, you'd have to feed the amp a sine wave of a known voltage (though low enough in level that the amplifier doesn't clip when you have the volume turned all the way up, and then write down the output voltage for each position of the volume control.



se


----------



## castleofargh

joe bloggs said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > you're looking too much into it when you apparently have no idea how loud you might go when you're listening. so you're trying to be super precise starting from a value you don't have. using dynamic values of tracks that might not even represent how you listen. I also went with some matter of guessing, but not as much IMO(well at least I hope).
> ...


 

 I have a feeling that the post wasn't addressed to me ^_^.


----------



## imackler

Of course, I'm skeptical  But did anyone get a chance to AB the Magni and Magni 2 and hear a difference in sound signature/quality?


----------



## maverickronin

How exactly did this thread get locked before anyone even made a reply...


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> How exactly did this thread get locked before anyone even made a reply...




How do you know there weren't replies? 

se


----------



## maverickronin

steve eddy said:


> How do you know there weren't replies?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Did you make one?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I just assumed it would be easier to delete the whole thread instead of deleting all the replies and then locking it...


----------



## Steve Eddy

maverickronin said:


> Did you make one?  :evil:
> 
> I just assumed it would be easier to delete the whole thread instead of deleting all the replies and then locking it...




Nope. I saw it same as you. No replies.

se


----------



## davidsh

Weird


----------



## bigshot

I answered the fella's questions in PM. He thanked me for replying. I don't think he knows why it was locked either.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I answered the fella's questions in PM. He thanked me for replying. I don't think he knows why it was locked either.




Weird indeed.

se


----------



## anetode

Because some idiots will spite-report any sound science post they don't bother putting the effort into understanding. Or maybe some mod didn't have their coffee yet, who knows.


----------



## headwhacker

anetode said:


> Because some idiots will spite-report any sound science post they don't bother putting the effort into understanding. Or maybe *some mod didn't have their coffee yet,* who knows.


 
  
 Most likely than not


----------



## bigshot

We all know the source of it


----------



## vid

maverickronin said:


> How exactly did this thread get locked before anyone even made a reply...


 
  
 Guy's trolling. Besides, he wants proof for a false assumption, so the thread was dead in any case.


----------



## bigshot

If he was trolling, he failed. He thanked me for my answer.


----------



## vid

I assume we'll see the beats in his inventory soon.


----------



## bigshot

Blatantly obvious troll alert.


----------



## RRod

bigshot said:


> Blatantly obvious troll alert.


 
  
 Yeah, he's a doozy.


----------



## bigshot

Blocked him. He can join AS


----------



## bigshot

He's desperate to draw me in. Ain't gonna happen. Tell it to the hand.


----------



## Ruben123

I think I missed something.
  
 OK to add something to this thread. I found a DAP (dont know which one) that has at least in the graphs ENORMOUS bass roll-off under load below 150 Hz or something. Why would you ever actually MAKE such a non linear player. Think it was paired with a low impedance earphone but it was a high end player, why not take the effort to add a lower resistance output so that you can drive also other types of earphones? Or does that have something to do with gain?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

ruben123 said:


> I think I missed something.
> 
> OK to add something to this thread. I found a DAP (dont know which one) that has at least in the graphs ENORMOUS bass roll-off under load below 150 Hz or something. Why would you ever actually MAKE such a non linear player. Think it was paired with a low impedance earphone but it was a high end player, why not take the effort to add a lower resistance output so that you can drive also other types of earphones? Or does that have something to do with gain?




Coz that makes the bass sound "faster"? :tongue_smile:

I think that would be a small coupling capacitor at fault here, a cheap way to remove DC offset.

Many IEMs (the main class of earphones having impedance low enough to have their bass response severely affected by said coupling capacitor) also have greatly exaggerated bass response, so this would also be a primitive way of "equalizing" them--although it's mostly the midbass that needs to be toned down, not the subbass...


----------



## Ruben123

joe bloggs said:


> Coz that makes the bass sound "faster"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Equalising as buying a DAP for your IEM instead of using the built in EQ of your DAP?


----------



## RRod

ruben123 said:


> Equalising as buying a DAP for your IEM instead of using the built in EQ of your DAP?


 
  
 Kind of like people buying specific tube amps for the HD800 instead of going "plunk" at 6kHz on an EQ.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Don't think I've seen a clearer explanation of the rationale behind an ABX test, if I do say so myself. Hope I haven't broken any rules though 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/661411/the-fiio-x5-thread/17580#post_11639780


----------



## bigshot




----------



## castleofargh

joe bloggs said:


> Don't think I've seen a clearer explanation of the rationale between an ABX test, if I do say so myself. Hope I haven't broken any rules though
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 all you need are one or 2 guys reporting you ^_^.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

castleofargh said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > Don't think I've seen a clearer explanation of the rationale between an ABX test, if I do say so myself. Hope I haven't broken any rules though
> ...




It's just a FiiO vs FiiO in-house "fight" though, don't think anybody should be offended? :confused_face_2:


----------



## Steve Eddy

joe bloggs said:


> It's just a FiiO vs FiiO in-house "fight" though, don't think anybody should be offended? :confused_face_2:




How do you pronounced that, by the way? "FiiO" that is.

se


----------



## bigshot




----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> He just craves attention. If you don't reply to him and just speak to the other people in the thread it drives him crazy. Notice how many times he replies to me and uses my name? He is desperate for attention.




RED-FLAGGED

se


----------

