New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by stv014

 Sennheiser might not be able to break physics, but their marketing, combined with the power of audiophile OCD, can successfully convince people that it is possible. Somewhat amusingly, before the HD800 was released, the previous flagship HD6xx headphones were subject to the exact same "very picky with amps" myths, and one was supposed to have to use an expensive high end amplifier to get anywhere near their full potential. Now that there is a much more expensive model...
 And even the LCD-2 is by far easier to drive than any typical passive loudspeaker. Yet, one can buy decent speaker amplifiers at a reasonable price.
Regarding the "experience" argument, did any of the believers with the high end equipment ever make a comparison between amplifiers that should not sound different for any measurable reason (like high output impedance), under accurately level matched double-blind conditions ? The authority of a few years of experience with expensive gear is pretty weak compared to the millions of years of evolution that developed the psychological biases that make sighted listening tests...
 Due to a number of factors, even the highest end headphones have far worse frequency response than even a cheap (but competently made) amplifier or DAC. For example, you will have difficulty finding any headphones that do not measure very poorly compared to this sub-$100 sound card DAC I tested here. It is just too hard to achieve anything close to a perfect flat response with an electromechanical transducer and the complex acoustics of the headphone enclosure and outer...
 Well, I already acknowledged that issue, although I suspect someone who believes that vinyl is inherently superior to any PCM, no matter what, will likely also be convinced that blind tests are flawed, and would bring up the usual excuses (too short time, not hearing the difference under pressure, etc.) in the case of a failed ABX test. The reason why I suggested the Red Book vs. 192/24 PCM comparison is that it at least allows for testing the single most criticized (at...
It is partly due to many people not being entirely satisfied with the frequency response of these headphones (treble emphasis with slightly recessed upper midrange - this also makes modern heavily compressed, clipped, and treble boosted recordings sound even worse) and try to use amplifiers as equalizers, and partly due to OCD: since the HD800 is a "flagship" product, by audiophile logic, one can only do justice to it by making everything else - amplifier, DAC, cables,...
 A simpler method is to record the LP in 192/24 format, and then create a version that is first converted to Red Book with a good resampler, then converted back to 192/24. This can then be compared to the original 192/24 recording using any ABX software, like the popular foobar2000 comparator plug-in. Now of course vinyl believers will say that even 192/24 PCM is inferior to LP by far, but if Red Book is so terrible because of the 22.05 kHz bandwidth, shouldn't it be easy...
 It is a bad and misleading article, since the alleged "worse noise floor" of the CD recording is simply either because of poor equipment used (as it was written in 2004, I guess it was some ancient 16-bit Sound Blaster, or early AC97 onboard audio, or similar), or it was used incompetently. This can be seen clearly in the table at the beginning, as the recording makes the minimum RMS level compared to the original file worse by more than 20 dB. This translates to an ENOB...
By the way, with a well implemented anti-aliasing filter, failing to "keep up" simply means that the ultrasonic content will be removed, but the audio band (<= 20 kHz) is still preserved without distortion.
 It would have to be ultrasonic content if Red Book format cannot "keep up". Faster rise at the same peak amplitude = higher frequency.
New Posts  All Forums: