Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Is there a newsletter or society for people who believe that headphone amplifiers are largely redundant scam products?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is there a newsletter or society for people who believe that headphone amplifiers are largely... - Page 12  

post #166 of 211

Perception of super audible sound pressure at high volume doesn't necessarily involve the eardrum.

post #167 of 211

I own a Fiio X3 and an Audio GD nfb 28. My girlfriend and I hooked them both up to my pc as dac/amp and volume matched them using a db meter. I then listened to a few 24 bit Flacs switching between the two. The nfb sounded Fuller and had better control as well as soundstage. I then put a blindfold on and sat just outside the rooms door. She played 20 seconds on one amp and then on the next. I couldn't tell what one she was using. Eventually I heard a clear difference and asked why she had not changed the amp till now, that this had to be the nfb. She infact had changed the amps before and what I heard now was her tricking me with the fiio by putting the volume up by 2.

 

The test was done s/e with T1


Edited by Eternal Schism - 2/27/14 at 4:27pm
post #168 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

In recorded music, there is very little to hear above 16kHz. You could dial the top end off entirely using an equalizer, and it wouldn't make much of a difference. The only stuff up that high is upper harmonics on cymbal crashes and triangles.

FM radio stations typically have used 14 kHz low pass filters.

Top of the line loudspeakers from the 1950s and 1960s are often rated from about 65 Hz to about 16 kHz frequency response.

Apple uses a 16 kHz low pass filter for iTMS AAC files. So do most other AAC encoders although some let you change the threshold. Most people don't even notice.
post #169 of 211

The AAC rolloff may have changed a bit. At 192 it rolls off at 16kHz, but by 320 it's up to 19kHz or so. Not that it really matters much, because there isn't much up there anyway.

post #170 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

The AAC rolloff may have changed a bit. At 192 it rolls off at 16kHz, but by 320 it's up to 19kHz or so. Not that it really matters much, because there isn't much up there anyway.

Apple uses the Fraunhofer AAC code which in its stock form doesn't change the low pass filter frequency. The capability to change the filter frequency is in the code but I don't know if or how Apple uses it. ffmpeg with the Fraunhofer code has a --cutoff option to change the filter frequency. I must correct myself: the Fraunhofer code defaults to ~14 kHz, about the same as typical FM radio. I set ffmpeg's cutoff to 16 kHz for my own FLAC to AAC transcoding because that's the upper bound of my hearing.

But yeah, so little there. It's almost all high order harmonics that lack the energy to be audible over the fundamental tones.
post #171 of 211

sound hardware (non dac, but lets call it an audio processor if it is hardware, processing if code running a a more general purpose CPU..)

 

yes background can be removed by dual microphones using beam focusing, that is, what comes to both microphones equally and at the same time, is intended, and other sounds can be removed.

 

knowing that for phone calls, voice is the intended target, sure, some algorythm can be used on single mix setup for noise removal.

 

heck we all likely have a video camera, retired, in a closet that has a wind filter mode that cuts the sound of the wind blowing violently over a mic.

 

the reason you get horribly electronic mash making its way out through your shure940s is they ARE accurately (and revealingly so) playing back your source files. If you need you HD800s to smooth out that sound, good for you.

 

ag, I have some studio monitors (read flat) Roland ie3 that sometimes I prefer to my b&w c5 for walking the streets.

 

its kinda rare, cause I like the presentation thatB&W seem to get right, I feel like I am listening to an 801 speaker, because the detail of echo, the subtleties that make a recording have an actual presence with front to back perception requires good sound files and a headphone that plays them back right.

 

most everyheadphone talked about on this site, jokes aside, are selected by people who want to enjoy a recording, so we can rule out non performing headphones from the mixup, but the headphones talkked about on this site have a range of useful applications.

 

living in rural western Australia (I follow my daughter to the ends of the earth), last year I owned thirteen sets of headphones, which have been whittled down, now, to a select few. Could I further part with what I have without giving up the extremes of function that they offer,.. No, the four remaining headsets off sufficiently diverse capabilities and are required by me at different times for both source, source file and application.

 

will amps make a difference, yes.

 

will they make a difference to an untrained ear/non focused listening off source files/equipment that don't reveal subtle nuances (that will greatly add to the presentation on an actual high fidelity setup), no, perhaps not.

 

science and cable, being that they pass an unaltered signal along, are built correctly in the first place, the science is that if you feel better about it, great. The shorter length will be less to, erm, carry, and as you argue against unecessary bulk in your source equipment and setup, the minimalist approach it is then!, so, yay.

 

one day when you hear a nice setup, and the audio bug hits you for a second wave, that equipment matters, your cables may end up serving you well.

 

I don't think it is likely as you seem easily swayed by marketing and the numbers game that the modern world is about (eg CPUs; not all megahurtz are equal) so 600MIPS (meaningless inicator processing speed), must, in their present incarnation serve you well.

 

maybe supercurio will voodoo mod your present soundchip, and good luck with that, cause if you get your source sorted out you may finally be able to notice some of the differences to be gained in this wonderful headfi world by owning expensive kit, cause I promise you, not everyone with money spent different to you did so foolishly, without research or auditioning.

 

there might just be something in what this community has to offer you, but, if not, I believe the community will go on, at the very least, blindly listening to audio nirvana. Perhaps with a drink at hand to sweeten the taste somewatt.

 

;)

post #172 of 211

Could someone explain that last post to me? I can't make head nor tail of it. It looks interesting, but it's so disorganized I can't follow it.

post #173 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratinox View Post


FM radio stations typically have used 14 kHz low pass filters.

Top of the line loudspeakers from the 1950s and 1960s are often rated from about 65 Hz to about 16 kHz frequency response.

Apple uses a 16 kHz low pass filter for iTMS AAC files. So do most other AAC encoders although some let you change the threshold. Most people don't even notice.

My B&W DM1 speakers (1950s and 60s) have supertweeters. Man do they perform.

 

My AR LST speakers might not go so high, and yes, music is VERY enjoyable through them more so than the monitors.

 

whilst speakers can vary the sound more than any other single piece of kit by easily offering a volume swing of 15db by placement, this is something headphones should not have to factor.

 

modern headphone designers do have to figure out how they wish to handle our modern (read crap) sound formats and can design a headphone to gloss over or even help out the errors to sounding inoffensive.

 

so would we want that one set of headphones for lossless playback on a highend setup, and lowpower reproduction of low fi sources;no, not likely.

 

better to have the compromises made by each part to be done with their target in mind, which, unfortunately cannot be both.

 

is this the biggest divide in audio commonly found that the masses have yet to learn through,.. I believe, daughtingly yes.

 

can we blindly recommend equipment to a person without knowing their needs. No way. This isn't one size fits all.

 

here, buy this big Zoom camera, cause you will need it to take photos of your newborn baby!

 

edit, soz my post before this one was a reply to the idea of cpus (dacs as the op put it) could enhance sound by their ability to shape, intelligently, the source music.

 

It was intended to explain that noise cancellation tech, either dual mic or single mic (my winphone edits mic=>mix) can do its target function well, but that that function serves audio playback (outside the realm of noise cancellation) quite pointlessly.

 

I am not on a computer, so my editing is poor at best given my limited web browser and screen keyboard not helping me get ideas across. I typically can see half a sentence on the screen at a time when writing, and cannot touch type on this device, so have to keep my eyes on the keyboard.

 

I had apologized earlier in this thread for my poor formating etc, and more so time being wasted by innocents trying to interpret my meanings.


Edited by whitedragem - 2/27/14 at 6:38pm
post #174 of 211
All I made sense of that he thinks people who don't hear differences between two amps are untrained ears or are not using good enough music/files.

Something which blind testing and proper study has proven to be false when concerning many amps

Also as seen above apparent modern formats are crap. Again debunked by testing of source material ripped into lossless than converted down to mp3 and blind tested.
Edited by Eternal Schism - 2/27/14 at 6:33pm
post #175 of 211

Slow down. You aren't communicating clearly.

 

I don't remember super tweeters existing until the 70s. There was no reason for them until reel to reel decks extended frequency response beyond the 16kHz cap of vinyl records.

post #176 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Could someone explain that last post to me? I can't make head nor tail of it. It looks interesting, but it's so disorganized I can't follow it.

 

It was a nonquoting reply from an earlier post by Ag.

 

the unintended non sequiter nature comes about by not being able to (easily) reread what I am writing, and I did lose my train of though re the in ears I walk with. I was going to write about that without focused listening in a quiet environment, what use do the studio armature headphones have to offer, whereas the design of sound intended by the c5s recreated a sound field, as is much more listenable for music that wants certain things presented coherently. Eg o vocalist and a band having physical locations. I enjoy the studio monitor, that whilst very accurate, its placement is not enveloping, so it is great for, say trance, where just listening to the soundscape can be daydreamous. I like making up words, and daydreamous fits for listening to soundscape that is Alan parson project.


Edited by whitedragem - 2/27/14 at 6:56pm
post #177 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I don't remember super tweeters existing until the 70s. There was no reason for them until reel to reel decks extended frequency response beyond the 16kHz cap of vinyl records.

According to B&W's own web site, the DM1 cabinets referenced came out in 1968 so close enough. Actually, according to the same site, B&W went into business in 1965 so there's no way he has B&W-branded speakers from the 1950's. smily_headphones1.gif

And +1 for everything Eternal Schism wrote in his two posts on this page.
post #178 of 211

Sorry White, you're expecting more patience from your readers than most people are interested in giving. Slow down and organize your thoughts. The listener is more important than the speaker.

post #179 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratinox View Post

According to B&W's own web site, the DM1 cabinets referenced came out in 1968 so close enough.

 

There are super tweeters in my studio monitors. They come from around 1973-1974. They are beautiful chrome jobs. Look like the front end of an Edsel!

post #180 of 211

I have already said, earlier in this thread, about amps, and not being made equal.

 

, two well made amps should sound,the same

 

regarding compressed sound, really depends on the song/genre.

 

sometimes intimacy is lost by cybal echo being 'thrown away' arbitrairily.

 

not the same as mastered for iTunes type decompression which is actually an improvement (possibly) over origional file.

 

man, I am not going to argue here, cause the op, the person I am trying to write too, ignores anything sound, and like a good internet troll, jumps on and creates discusions about arguable stuff.

 

why in a discussion about amps are we falling so far off topic? Others have already noted, and bowed out/moved on.

 

I can only hope this remained a thread for comical value, hence why noone cares if topic remains, most have realized this thread, for the sake of the op, is pointless, and so it is just a fun place now to talk.

 

in years of being a headfier I haven't contributed much, if anything, and arguing the value of my comments by third parties who care not to have listened to the whole conversation is not my intention. I believe that words/discussion should have value, and my value is not to be here and take target/focus away from the op.

 

I have tried to engage them, hoping that they might reconsider their setup/why they do not hear/note the differnences that a lot of other people do.

 

I'm not butthurt, and I hope I am wearing my bigboy pants, but I think I should bow out of this thread, as clearly it has become too much for me to handle.

 

if I have come off sounding opinionated and negative, well, as a great salesperson I can sell the good in anything. I LOVE THE EXTRA AMOUNT OF MUSIC I CAN FIT ONTO MY STORAGE CARD (oops, caps) due to compression. But I dig it for the music that it allows me to hear (not the music it doesn't).

 

If people cannot hear improvements above their chosen flavour of compression (I go a range of lossless myself), that is not my hurt, and affects me not one ioata.

 

cause I thought we were here to argue about amps, more specifically about whether the amp in the ops phone and or laptop cannont be improved upon, which they

believe, cannot.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Is there a newsletter or society for people who believe that headphone amplifiers are largely redundant scam products?