Quote:

terriblepaulz said:

Quote:

heidegger said:

...
Finally, if the stuff about the amps is accurate and there really is no difference between amps that meet a certain minimum quality, then what are we to say about the many posts and reviews where people compare amps and hear all sorts of differences in terms of treble, bass, width, depth, soundstage, airiness, graininess, etc.? Are these people just crazy?

Click to expand...

Nope, just human.

Click to expand...

I gotta say I was attracted to this thread because I had just ordered a $1,500 headphone amplifier for my 650 and the statement here about people not being able to tell the difference between amps really made me think twice about my purchase. I have a Hedroom micro amp that I like a lot, but it was time for an upgrade. Well, initially my new amp sounded terrible, much worse than my micro amp. Then I burned it in with constant play for three days per the manufacturer's own instructions and tried the amp out again with the very recording that had made me cringe. Huge improvement! Now, according to people on this thread the argument for what happened goes something like this: burning it in was the placebo that merely made me think that the sound improved. I just don't buy it. After having read this thread, I approached this amp with a great deal of skepticism, but I cannot deny the improvement. And there is also a difference in the sonic signature of the two amps. Is it all just in my head? In a way, that question is pointless because, if it seems this real, then it might as well be real. That sums up my attitude toward all the skepticism. I just wanted to give my experience in case somebody out there is thinking about getting a good amp and this thread might dissuade them. Based on my own experience, which amp you choose does make a difference, although if you only have money for a micro or desk top I can also tell you that getting a more expensive amp has also allowed me to see just how good my Headroom micro amp really is for its price. Even a Headroom micro can make the 650 shine, and it even has some advantages over my more expensive Black Cube Linear USB, so don't be ashamed of your micro and don't feel bad that you don't have a more expensive amp.

 
Quote:

heidegger said:

Meyer/Moran has been a subject of intense discussion at an SACD forum. The posters there point to all sorts of problems with it, although I couldn't say whether the criticisms are justified.

Click to expand...

 
There are two possibly legitimate crticisms. The first criticism is that not all the SACD samples came from a purely DSD chain, so for some samples the benefit of DSD was lost as the recordings were derived from old tapes or PCM recordings, ditto some of the DVD-A recordings were from old tapes so the higher dynamic range and bandwidth were not there to begin with. As far as it goes this is true, however several samples were properly high res (DSD or high res PCM) from start to player and on none of those did anyone manage a statistically significant result. So take that as you wish. Also note the listeners chose their own material, i.e they chose which discs to listen to and expected them to be better via high res.
 
The second criticism is that one of the players used was technically only a bit (12 db) better than a CD player in its dynamic range so the benefit of the source material was hobbled by the playback. Now both SACD and 24/196  promise not just higher frequencies but also better dynamic ranges, the high frequences part we can ignore as even the "poor" player had the extended frequency range, but the "poor" player did have a dynamic range that was way below the theoretical capabilities of 24 bit or DSD - a miserly 108db.
 
How damaging was this lowering of the dynamic range ? - well if the source material had an actual dynamic range of 144db (24 bits) then the 108db output seems pretty poor - however no existing high res player is actually much better in its dynamic range, several are worse, most are about the same - the two other players were about the same. Also more to the point no recording anywhere has a dynamic range of > 96db - even good classical recordings with a dynamic range of > 80db are highly unusual. So what were the critics complaining about, it was the fact that the "poor" player was cheap and so obviously really bad.
 
So you don't just have to have an SACD or DVD-A player that has a dynamic range that is 4x better than CD (96 + 6 + 6)  each 6db doubles it but you must also have a "good" one as well - whatever that means.
 

Quote:

heidegger said:

Now, according to people on this thread the argument for what happened goes something like this: burning it in was the placebo that merely made me think that the sound improved. I just don't buy it. 

Click to expand...

You don't need to, the testing methodology has been mentioned here tons of times.  Level match and do a DBT.
 
If something sounds different between amps, either one or both are built wrong/insufficient for the load.

Quote:

shike said:

You don't need to, the testing methodology has been mentioned here tons of times.  Level match and do a DBT.
 
If something sounds different between amps, either one or both are built wrong/insufficient for the load.

Click to expand...

 
This.
 
 
Honestly, the incessant kool-aid and audiophile delusion befuddles me to no end.

Link non 29 added to the original post. 
 
I thought I would also link to the thread on positive blind tests to show some balance.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/513481/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results
 
as they include some amps.

Quote:

shike said:

Quote:

heidegger said:

Now, according to people on this thread the argument for what happened goes something like this: burning it in was the placebo that merely made me think that the sound improved. I just don't buy it. 

Click to expand...

You don't need to, the testing methodology has been mentioned here tons of times.  Level match and do a DBT.
 
If something sounds different between amps, either one or both are built wrong/insufficient for the load.

Click to expand...

Then the Headroom Micro Amp was insufficient for the load, because I'm getting a much different sound from the BCL. It's much deeper and all around much more expansive. Also there is no doubt that the sound of the BCL changed as it has gotten more play time. At first the sound was blurry and indistinct; now everything is much more focused.
 

Quote:

heidegger said:

Then the Headroom Micro Amp was insufficient for the load, because I'm getting a much different sound from the BCL.
 

Click to expand...

It's possible, the HD650 can go into 500 or so ohms territory.  Interestingly the Black Cube at its cost doesn't list any specs for anything above 300 ohms.  For all we know it's clipping or distorting too.
 
As for the BLC sounding different due to increased play time -- this is almost guaranteed to be placebo.  Unless something is designed horribly wrong none of the measurements should change that drastically during operation.

Quote:

shike said:

 
 
As for the BLC sounding different due to increased play time -- this is almost guaranteed to be placebo.  Unless something is designed horribly wrong none of the measurements should change that drastically during operation.

Click to expand...

Out of the box the BCL was a blurry, indistinct mess -- and slow as all hell. It has gained clarity and depth. It's much more focused. I wish one day you will own a brand new BCL and then you will know what I'm talking about.

Quote:

heidegger said:

After having read this thread, I approached this amp with a great deal of skepticism, but I cannot deny the improvement. And there is also a difference in the sonic signature of the two amps. Is it all just in my head? In a way, that question is pointless because, if it seems this real, then it might as well be real.

Click to expand...

Not a very Heideggerian way of thinking.      You make it sound more like Husserlian noemata than an existential development of readiness-to-hand (er, ear) from prior conspicuousness, which is what we're talking about..

Quote:

heidegger said:

It's much deeper and all around much more expansive. Also there is no doubt that the sound of the BCL changed as it has gotten more play time. At first the sound was blurry and indistinct; now everything is much more focused.

Click to expand...

heidegger said:

Out of the box the BCL was a blurry, indistinct mess -- and slow as all hell. It has gained clarity and depth. It's much more focused. I wish one day you will own a brand new BCL and then you will know what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but what the heck? What are posts like these doing in the sound science forum? Especially given the title and directive of this thread, this is simply ridiculous.
 
 
I suppose I'll stick to AVS for reasonable audio discussion.

One of my favorite bits about cable reviews, is that they clearly associate the sound to the color of the cable. If it's made out of copper, it's warm. If it's made out of silver, it's analytical. If the mesh is colored black, it's neutral. The list goes on. More expensive cables always deliver more detail, better imaging, and a more expansive soundstage. They make the music come to life. It hurts my head.
 
My dad and I auditioned $6k/pr cable on his B&W 800 Diamonds, and we honestly could not tell a difference in between cables. My dad claimed to hear enormous differences going from the Bryston 4B SST to 2x Bryston 7B, but I just don't hear it...in that sense, I'm skeptical as well. My hearing ability is certainly beyond his as well.
 
I can listen to different headphones and different speakers and the difference in sound is astonishing. I can listen to different cables and I'm not sure I can pick out any difference whatsoever. Even amps are tricky...it took quite a few A/Bs in between onboard and an Asus Xonar STX before realizing that the STX was giving me deeper and stronger bass, but the difference was not mindblowing, and not certainly as big as spending an additional $200 on better headphones.
 
I certainly think my Maverick Audio D1 is a big improvement over even the Xonar STX...but I'm not naive enough to think it's impossible for the differences to be in my head. Same goes with break-in...are the headphones really breaking in? Or am I just adjusting to the sound? My K702 sound full and rich after listening to them for a while, but if I take a listen to my HFI 580 and come back to them, they sound harsh and shrill. Psychoacoustics play a big role in this hobby.
 
I can understand maybe justifying a small portion of your budget to get the most out of your high end headphones...but when people are spending three times the price of their headphones on amps and cables, I can't help but cringe.

Quote:

3x0 said:

Quote:

heidegger said:

It's much deeper and all around much more expansive. Also there is no doubt that the sound of the BCL changed as it has gotten more play time. At first the sound was blurry and indistinct; now everything is much more focused.

Click to expand...

heidegger said:

Out of the box the BCL was a blurry, indistinct mess -- and slow as all hell. It has gained clarity and depth. It's much more focused. I wish one day you will own a brand new BCL and then you will know what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but what the heck? What are posts like these doing in the sound science forum? Especially given the title and directive of this thread, this is simply ridiculous.
 
 
I suppose I'll stick to AVS for reasonable audio discussion.

Click to expand...

I'm warning people against the bad information that copiously lards this thread -- for instance, the claim that breaking in your amp does not result in better sound. If I had listened to the "science" being bandied about here, I would have packed my amp up and returned it to the store. Luckily, I let my amp burn in and was rewarded with wonderful sound. My amp did require a break-in period. It sounds much better now than out of the box.

Quote:

heidegger said:

I'm warning people against the bad information that copiously lards this thread -- for instance, the claim that breaking in your amp does not result in better sound. If I had listened to the "science" being bandied about here, I would have packed my amp up and returned it to the store. Luckily, I let my amp burn in and was rewarded with wonderful sound. My amp did require a break-in period. It sounds much better now than out of the box.

Click to expand...

 
Quote:

heidegger said:

I'm warning people against the bad information that copiously lards this thread -- for instance, the claim that breaking in your amp does not result in better sound. If I had listened to the "science" being bandied about here, I would have packed my amp up and returned it to the store. Luckily, I let my amp burn in and was rewarded with wonderful sound. My amp did require a break-in period. It sounds much better now than out of the box.

Click to expand...

The non-anecdotal evidence for amp burn is simply non-existent - there are no controlled blind listening tests to support the assertion that here is any meaningful (audible) burn-in in amps. You could however buy another identical amp and then do some blind tests yourself.
 
The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
 

Quote:

heidegger said:

I'm warning people against the bad information that copiously lards this thread -- for instance, the claim that breaking in your amp does not result in better sound. If I had listened to the "science" being bandied about here, I would have packed my amp up and returned it to the store. Luckily, I let my amp burn in and was rewarded with wonderful sound. My amp did require a break-in period. It sounds much better now than out of the box.

Click to expand...

Here are some examples of the science (sorry- "science") of what you're describing:
 
The influence of familiarization on preference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_effect
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11191399