O2 vs TOTL - Page 2

Unsubscribed.

How the O2 compares to TOTL may be a bit on the difficult side of easy to ascertain, as I'd go out on a limb and posit that the majority of TOTL owners never spent much time with an O2, and vice versa. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaycalgary 

"It does if you are comparing it to TOTL lol."
So you can shoehorn any piece of crap into the High-end Audio Forum as long as you compare it to TOTL even though it really doesn't compare to TOTL? There must be a derogatory term for what you are trying to do here.

Calling the O2 a piece of crap is a bit too far me thinks, it performs great, the creator of the O2 proved many wrong whilst he was here at Headfi ages ago, and to some people it sounds great. Maybe it doesn't stack well against $1k+ amps, but it was designed to be as close to the original recording as possible, unfortunately most of our ears have been coloured by tube amps. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaycalgary 

"It does if you are comparing it to TOTL lol."
So you can shoehorn any piece of crap into the High-end Audio Forum as long as you compare it to TOTL even though it really doesn't compare to TOTL? There must be a derogatory term for what you are trying to do here.

There's a subset of people here who believe, due to not understanding the limitations of measurements they've seen, that think that anything more expensive than the O2 is a waste of money.  I think an inexpensive, well-performing amp as the O2 was intended to be is a good thing. All the hype and nonsense over it detracts severely from that, however.

I am sure a million more words will be written on the O2, but it wont change that the amp is only what it is and can do only what it can do and no more or less, no manner how hard some people wish different.

I haven't personally heard it, but everything I read says it should sound about the same as the HPA2 output of a Benchmark DAC1, which makes sense because that's what the maker seems to have used as a "high end piece" in most of his comparisons and studies on his blog - I believe he would often directly compare the O2's stats to the DAC1's?   

I'm eager to hear the O2, and if it does actually sound audibly indistinguishable from the DAC1 headphone output, then it's definitely a very tremendously clear, colorless, transparent, and neutral amplifier. The question would just be, how strong is it and can it deliver enough power to make all of the harder headphones sing, and I suppose if you don't like colorless amplifiers, you'll find the O2 to be just as 'boring/clinical/sterile' as the DAC1. Many people here dislike the DAC1 and find it unlistenable (I am not in agreement with that camp).

As far as being a straight-flat, clean amplifier, I'm not sure what exactly noticeably and definitively bests something like the O2 in those aspects alone - the stats I've seen suggest that the O2 produces sound purely, "beyond human range of hearing flatness and clarity." Our audio technology is pretty advanced; and the O2 proves that it is not overly expensive anymore to make an incredibly clear, simple and precise amplifier.    

Pure sterility and flatness doesn't necessarily make for the greatest sounding amplifier, though. Something "warmer" or what-have-you could be the preferred amplifier of the vast majority of discerning audiophiles. Plenty of people prefer something "artfully imperfect," sound slightly twisted to their tastes, over something "boringly pure."  Or who knows, maybe the secret to the best-sounding midrange is actually to carefully put some peaks and valleys somewhere in the frequency response chart of the amplifier, and a "perfectly flat" amp just won't sound as clear as one that's a bit different. Human ears are funny things. Is a ruler-flat amplifier inarguably the best approach?  

And don't underestimate the value of appearance and design. I'd be much more proud of a finely crafted tube amplifier on my desk, a clever and rare piece of equipment, than I would be of a simple and (in my opinion) very common and even mundane O2. There's a reason why the expensive speakers have polished, exotic wood cabinets, and it probably has little to do with the material's effect on resonance. It's because awesome-looking, well-made stuff is very attractive on so many levels. I haven't seen an O2 design yet that tickles my fancies the way some of the TOTL stuff does. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timestretch 
I haven't seen an O2 design yet that tickles my fancies the way some of the TOTL stuff does. 

...but it could happen, right?  What is more arguable is whether the Objective2 can compete with high-end amps, particularly (as was noted) amps that are more refined and/or more exotic than the DAC1.

Besides, if you saw a beautifully cased Objective2, there would be all sorts of "lipstick on a pig" comments from the Summit-Fiers and that's a guarantee.

My own opinion notwithstanding, I start to read these threads and it's a matter of time before I feel I can't read anymore back-and-forth.  It becomes an "us against them."  The amp must be crap, we're stupid for falling for it, money versus value versus quality, ad nauseum, and there's enough of that on both sides.

I heard an O2 at my local meet.  I liked it.  I heard amps at that meet that I liked more, because the headphones I like require more power and authority to sound their best IMO.  It was a subjective and completely uncontrolled comparison: different headphones, different sources, you name it.  The objectivists will tell me I didn't do it right.  I'd tell them to shove it.  It's the problem with these discussions, that they don't remain 100% faithful to someone's ability to enjoy music.  After a while it's about pissing on people's shoes, and then it's about gravity and trigonometry.  Or classism.  Or audiophile religion.  I wish people would tire of these diversions.  It's bad enough some of us listen to music that the rest of us hate.  And it's weird enough that people are fighting over topology.  You gotta let the personal stuff go.  Even if it started here with someone being a jerk or ignorant or whatever.

The O2 works pretty well as a Pre-amp for the high end Tube Amps...    should be interesting when the DAC version shows up this summer..

OK, this cult-like blind love for the O2 is starting to scare me. It's a nice little semi-portable amplifier but if it's already outperformed by mid-tier amplifiers like say the Schitt Asgard it has no business standing around those "TOTL" stuff. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurkumaural 

...but it could happen, right?  What is more arguable is whether the Objective2 can compete with high-end amps, particularly (as was noted) amps that are more refined and/or more exotic than the DAC1.

 

Besides, if you saw a beautifully cased Objective2, there would be all sorts of "lipstick on a pig" comments from the Summit-Fiers and that's a guarantee.

 

My own opinion notwithstanding, I start to read these threads and it's a matter of time before I feel I can't read anymore back-and-forth.  It becomes an "us against them."  The amp must be crap, we're stupid for falling for it, money versus value versus quality, ad nauseum, and there's enough of that on both sides.

 

I heard an O2 at my local meet.  I liked it.  I heard amps at that meet that I liked more, because the headphones I like require more power and authority to sound their best IMO.  It was a subjective and completely uncontrolled comparison: different headphones, different sources, you name it.  The objectivists will tell me I didn't do it right.  I'd tell them to shove it.  It's the problem with these discussions, that they don't remain 100% faithful to someone's ability to enjoy music.  After a while it's about pissing on people's shoes, and then it's about gravity and trigonometry.  Or classism.  Or audiophile religion.  I wish people would tire of these diversions.  It's bad enough some of us listen to music that the rest of us hate.  And it's weird enough that people are fighting over topology.  You gotta let the personal stuff go.  Even if it started here with someone being a jerk or ignorant or whatever.

Good post right here. A lot of times these things are taken too personal. At the end of the day, we're just talking about silly headphones. Seems especially venomous with the O2 which is why I've mainly kept my opinions on it to myself with the exception of personal conversations with folks. (FWIW, I haven't even turned mine on since the meet in February). 

Duh, I have heard and compared them of course. The fact that the Asgard can swing more voltage and pump out more current is already doing the O2 a lot of disfavor. 

Please don't get me wrong, I quite love the thing as a portable amplifier but treating it as if it's a giant killer that can slay amplifiers many, many times more expensive is just ignorance at its best. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by K3cT 

OK, this cult-like blind love for the O2 is starting to scare me. It's a nice little semi-portable amplifier but if it's already outperformed by mid-tier amplifiers like say the Schitt Asgard it has no business standing around those "TOTL" stuff. 

Same here.  But trolls and their loaded questions aside, I quite like the thing.   

Do a O2 versus CMOY amp and the Cmoy might just win in musicality. I heard my small Alessandros through La Figaro 339, so a tiny headphone with a big amp, and the tiny headphones sounded glorious i was amazed. If your headphones sound very good and musical even if you headphones aren't the best of the bunch, then it's a good amp. Otherwise well..