or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audiophile cables, an interesting question.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audiophile cables, an interesting question. - Page 56

post #826 of 1186

yup I always go for the real bad situation(but still trying to use actual values) as I believe that if my argument can stand with it, it can stand always in practical situations.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

Anyway, to follow up on what you're saying, I agree about volume matching, but how would you take care of frequency mismatch? What would be the point of that since that's exactly what (seemingly) causes the differences to begin with? A good DBT will show differences if differences there are, and none if there are none.

well good point. a real objective DBT would probably not pass on this(that's where you know I'm only half assed objectivist^_^). I though it would be ok for some slight 0.2 or 0.3db roll off, else I would act like bigshot stated and get rid of it. I would EQ it, given that a very small EQ would have very little negative effects, it should at least be in the inaudible range. so a much better option than an audible roll off IMO. (I'm talking hypothetical situation here, I don't even have anything to match levels at home).

from that, if the results were to show people guessing, as it usually does for dacs with god specs, I wouldn't bother looking further. if on the other hand, the one upon which I used EQ is clearly disliked and identified, then it would be a real problem ^_^.

I guess I could apply the EQ to the other one to determine if we're judging the EQ or the dac.

post #827 of 1186

Good luck discerning the frequency response deviations in digital audio with human ears!

post #828 of 1186

Not doubt but we are talking about analog audio here since any distinction will be made after the conversion and the analog signal going through the output phase.

post #829 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

Exactly right. To my ears the Benchmark on its own is too bright, almost shrill in fact, no matter if I use its headphones out or use it as a preamp feeding the power amp. I also absolutely love the sound of my tube amp/preamp, and I couldn't care less about what's "real" or "high fidelity" if what I have sounds better. I'm not the only one, a great many Head-fiers who own the DAC-1 also own tube amps, and the pair sounds.. well... simply awesome. In the end the final judge is always going to be my ears...

Considering that the Benchmark is one of the best-measuring pieces of audio equipment that money can buy (at any price), this tells me that you are either subconsciously biased against solid state (due to your love of tubes) and hearing flaws that aren't there, or you have trained yourself to like a poor frequency response and your tube gear is rolling off the highs pretty severely. The easy way to tell which one is the case would be to do a blinded test, or to measure the tube gear and see what it's doing to the signal.

post #830 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

Considering that the Benchmark is one of the best-measuring pieces of audio equipment that money can buy (at any price), this tells me that you are either subconsciously biased against solid state (due to your love of tubes) and hearing flaws that aren't there, or you have trained yourself to like a poor frequency response and your tube gear is rolling off the highs pretty severely. The easy way to tell which one is the case would be to do a blinded test, or to measure the tube gear and see what it's doing to the signal.

 

Hadn't heard tubes before I bought the DAC1 (years ago, it was my first DAC), and found it to be bright, so no subconscious tube bias could exist then. My opinion on the DAC1 is pretty much commonplace amongst its owners though, almost every single review you can read finds it bright. Maybe I've "trained myself" as you put it, though that's unlikely. I have no way to measure the tube gear, no interest in it either, it sounds great as is right now and I wouldn't change a thing. Unlike the popular opinion of the Sound Science forum, I wholeheartedly disagree that "best sound" = flat frequency response throughout the spectrum, so I am not really interested in changing what I have, only curious to hear different things so long as it doesn't cost me anything.

post #831 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

...Unlike the popular opinion of the Sound Science forum, I wholeheartedly disagree that "best sound" = flat frequency response throughout the spectrum...

I'd be very curious to hear your justification for this statement here...

post #832 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

I'd be very curious to hear your justification for this statement here...

 

What do you mean?

post #833 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post

I'd be very curious to hear your justification for this statement here...

It's very simple. "Best sound" is a decidedly subjective assessment. Perhaps a better term would be "personal preference." At least that doesn't have the implication of "best sound" being something universal.

se
post #834 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

Hadn't heard tubes before I bought the DAC1 (years ago, it was my first DAC), and found it to be bright, so no subconscious tube bias could exist then. My opinion on the DAC1 is pretty much commonplace amongst its owners though, almost every single review you can read finds it bright. Maybe I've "trained myself" as you put it, though that's unlikely. I have no way to measure the tube gear, no interest in it either, it sounds great as is right now and I wouldn't change a thing. Unlike the popular opinion of the Sound Science forum, I wholeheartedly disagree that "best sound" = flat frequency response throughout the spectrum, so I am not really interested in changing what I have, only curious to hear different things so long as it doesn't cost me anything.

 

The Benchmark is almost a dictionary definition of flat, in terms of accuracy it is , well a benchmark, every serious evaluation of it shows it to be neutral not bright, the subjective reviews that describe it as bright merely indicate that subjective evaluations have their limits and that they cannot be relied on to be accurate. The broader point is that few of these subjective reviews have even been critically evaluated by requiring the reviewers to demonstrate any reliable ability to discriminate between A and B. That you prefer something that is not utterly flat and neutral is of course your privilege !

post #835 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


It's very simple. "Best sound" is a decidedly subjective assessment. Perhaps a better term would be "personal preference." At least that doesn't have the implication of "best sound" being something universal.

se

 

Oh that's what he meant. Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
 

 

The Benchmark is almost a dictionary definition of flat, in terms of accuracy it is , well a benchmark, every serious evaluation of it shows it to be neutral not bright, the subjective reviews that describe it as bright merely indicate that subjective evaluations have their limits and that they cannot be relied on to be accurate. The broader point is that few of these subjective reviews have even been critically evaluated by requiring the reviewers to demonstrate any reliable ability to discriminate between A and B. That you prefer something that is not utterly flat and neutral is of course your privilege !

 

Yes, I'm not arguing that the benchmark isn't perfectly neutral. My headphones are on the bright side already, so paired up with a "neutral" DAC it sounds too bright for my taste.

post #836 of 1186

The problem there are the cans. A simple dash of EQ could probably fix that right up.

post #837 of 1186

Why fix something that isn't broken? My system sounds awesome as it is :)

post #838 of 1186

The problem with EQing upstream, instead of as the last step is if you are using a colored source, you end up with different sounds for different sources, and if you use a colored amp, you don't have the control to fine tune the response you do with simple equalization. Also, if your amp does happen to be colored exactly the way you want it, when the time comes to replace it, you have to find one with the exact same coloration, which might not be easy. It's simpler to keep everything flat up to the last step and apply correction precisely using an equalizer. Then you can swap in replacement equipment without affecting the precise EQ correction you like.

post #839 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

The problem with EQing upstream, instead of as the last step is if you are using a colored source, you end up with different sounds for different sources, and if you use a colored amp, you don't have the control to fine tune the response you do with simple equalization. Also, if your amp does happen to be colored exactly the way you want it, when the time comes to replace it, you have to find one with the exact same coloration, which might not be easy. It's simpler to keep everything flat up to the last step and apply correction precisely using an equalizer. Then you can swap in replacement equipment without affecting the precise EQ correction you like.

 

Don't need to replace it. I put my hands into it enough to be able to pretty much rebuild it or change any broken parts should the need arise. :D

 

You're right though, eventually, when I have the time and money to build a second system, I will try it out your way, EQing on the last step. Sounds fun.

post #840 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

What do you mean?

I think this has already been explained, but I think "best sound" is a fairly objective criterion, and would require the sound to be a faithful reproduction of the intended material (which requires, by definition, a flat frequency response). However, to say you prefer a different sound is a much more subjective thing, and though I may disagree with your preference, I wouldn't object at all to you claiming you prefer the way a particular non-flat response sounds.

 

(That having been said, I do agree with Bigshot that if you're trying to improve the sound of a bright pair of headphones by buying an amp with rolled off highs, you'd be able to do a better job of getting your final desired response by just using your Benchmark or similarly excellent gear along with appropriate EQ)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audiophile cables, an interesting question.