Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › HD800 being "picky" with amps myth
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HD800 being "picky" with amps myth - Page 13

post #181 of 239

If we're talking about neutrality here, let's skip comparisons to hifi grade components. Why not high end studio gear from Lavry (Gold), Mytek, Solid State Logic, Antelope Audio, Apogee, Dangerous, Crane, Weiss etc. These guys actually make equipment that gets used in professional studios where music is made. Convertor neutrality is obviously a given. I have never ever seen an ODAC or O2 being used in a studio. Why is that? Are all these professionals just stupid to spend $10,000 on converters when they can opt out for a $300 ODAC+O2.

 

I highly recommend people to audition some high end studio converters just for fun. I guarantee that the difference will be huge. I have ABX and double blind before for cables and once with O2 and Emotiva mini (when I initially got it). Those seemed close initially in performance so I thought why not. Although with my current rig and other studio gear that I use from time to time, the difference is so huge in performance that it isn't even worth bothering with any testing. Of course this doesn't mean jack to you guys as you probably still want proper testing done….but seriously try high end professional grade convertors and you'll know within seconds.

 

You don't even have to go spend crazy amount. Even a Emotiva Stealth DC-1 will murder it. Ask anyone that has made that change and they will all pick the DC-1.

post #182 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by PleasantSounds View Post
 

 

So are you suggesting we should be listening to sine wave generators to avoid being biased by the music???

 

What else are you guys going to come up with to discredit a pretty solid experiment? I bet the next one is going to say it is not statistically representative because less than 1000 people took part in it.

I'm not quite sure how this relates to my post.  Perhaps you misquoted?

post #183 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by dclaz View Post
 

I'm not quite sure how this relates to my post.  Perhaps you misquoted?

 

No, the quote was correct. I could have misunderstood you though, but that was my interpretation of your statement.

post #184 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View Post
 

I have never ever seen an ODAC or O2 being used in a studio. Why is that? Are all these professionals just stupid to spend $10,000 on converters when they can opt out for a $300 ODAC+O2.

 

 

Probably because the two channel output usb only ODAC is not a suitable substitute in the studio for a 32 channel in + 32 channel out AD/DA converter with support for multiple i/o interfaces ($3000)?

 

The ODAC and o2 are DIY parts. They don't have the construction, finish, or features suitable for replacing studio converters. That doesn't mean that its stereo sounds isn't excellent, it just means that it is missing all of the functionality required from converters in a professional studio.

 

Otherwise, I agree with you that professional audio equipment is extremely high quality.

 

Cheers


Edited by ab initio - 7/9/14 at 9:49pm
post #185 of 239

Hm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PleasantSounds View PostSo are you suggesting we should be listening to sine wave generators to avoid being biased by the music???

Strawman argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View PostIf we're talking about neutrality here, let's skip comparisons to hifi grade components. Why not high end studio gear from Lavry (Gold), Mytek, Solid State Logic, Antelope Audio, Apogee, Dangerous, Crane, Weiss etc. These guys actually make equipment that gets used in professional studios where music is made. Convertor neutrality is obviously a given. I have never ever seen an ODAC or O2 being used in a studio. Why is that? Are all these professionals just stupid to spend $10,000 on converters when they can opt out for a $300 ODAC+O2.

 

I highly recommend people to audition some high end studio converters just for fun. I guarantee that the difference will be huge. I have ABX and double blind before for cables and once with O2 and Emotiva mini (when I initially got it). Those seemed close initially in performance so I thought why not. Although with my current rig and other studio gear that I use from time to time, the difference is so huge in performance that it isn't even worth bothering with any testing. Of course this doesn't mean jack to you guys as you probably still want proper testing done….but seriously try high end professional grade convertors and you'll know within seconds.

 

You don't even have to go spend crazy amount. Even a Emotiva Stealth DC-1 will murder it. Ask anyone that has made that change and they will all pick the DC-1.

Argumentum ad populum + Appeal to authority + Inducive fallacy + Misuse of anecdotal evidence + (possibly) Confirmation bias

 

All ABX/DBT that has not been properly level-matched (preferably with low switching times) can safely be discarded from consideration.

 

As mentioned above, the need for proper A/D conversion is a hefty consideration for investments in studio equipment.


Edited by 3X0 - 7/9/14 at 9:54pm
post #186 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by PleasantSounds View Post
 

 

Is that a fact or an opinion? 

It is a fact that both the O2 and the Benchmark products are audibly perfect. It is an opinion (albeit a fairly well informed one) that designing an audibly perfect amp shouldn't be that hard for anyone competent in electronic design, and therefore I wouldn't be surprised if many other amps on the market do meet the requirements for audible perfection.

post #187 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View Post I have never ever seen an ODAC or O2 being used in a studio. Why is that? Are all these professionals just stupid to spend $10,000 on converters when they can opt out for a $300 ODAC+O2.

Because studios need more channels, more inputs, more outputs, and higher build quality, and quite frankly, $10k is such a drop in the bucket compared to the overall costs of building and running a high end studio that it doesn't make sense to cheap out on a component like this (even when all that is being sacrificed is features and build quality, not audio quality).

post #188 of 239

Quote:

Originally Posted by kn19h7 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

they very well do as long as all parameters are accounted for. many things are free from the chaos theory.

math leads to knowledge that experiments can only demonstrate years later (and some still wait to be).  we tend to believe in vastly acknowledged math theories, because math have so many times now proven to be the number one truth teller in the world. and not much in math is about experiment. doesn't that contradict your statement?

("off topic"the check spelling doesn't want "proven". if "proved" is right  spelling why did I have "prove" in the irregular list of verbs when I was at school?)

 

in most expensive domains now simulations have replaced experiments and conclusively lead to the making of the real stuff. even the guys creating the amps and headphones don't just try randomly until they get something right, unless it's one guy who learned by himself, but I would hope that he's got at least something close to an engineer level of knowledge, else it must be a long road for him.

 

when you know from reliable measurements(manufacturer specs might not always be it, I admit) and know all the specs are above "great for human", with enough power to drive the headphone(also something not hard to predict with the right measurements). then we know exactly how it will sound.

only when too much imperfection and distortions come out of an amp are we unable to predict how it will sound(chaos theory making a come back, too many parameters for accurate prediction). all good stuff do sound the same because there is only one right way to accurately transmit a signal. and for the amp, that's by transmitting it as it was with gain.

because math have so many times now proven to be the number one truth teller in the world. and not much in math is about experiment. doesn't that contradict your statement?

Not saying I am agree with the statement, but have you noticed that "proven"? We need to actually run experiment to verify estimates or "prove" hypothesis, instead of direct jumping into conclusion. Accuracy is nothing more than accuracy.

 

in most expensive domains now simulations have replaced experiments and conclusively lead to the making of the real stuff.

It would be worrifying if the "real stuff" were not sufficiently tested before actual release... in fact, we have all kinds of standards and regulations for that.

 

Well, when we have "all the specs" and know all related theories, we may be able to make very very accurate estimates, thats it.

But that "all the specs" is yet another topic to be defined, tested and agreed on. Currently we have equipments that are measured fine, but not widely well liked, which might be an indicator of something's lacking in paramaters measured.

I have never tried to say that experiment wasn't an important part of knowing. all I'm trying to say is that when the experiments have already been done so many times in so many conditions, then we can rely on knowledge. and sometimes, depending on the variables, it's not even necessary to experiment at all because we have mastered the behavior of those variables.

amps are in so many things, they are very well known systems and architectures.

 

now I clearly disagree with the idea that we don't possess all the parameters for the audio in an amp. I can' t prove it, and can't disprove your assessment, but I firmly believe that we have all the tools necessary to totally know the behavior of an amp. to me measuring fine and not being liked leads to 3 more possible conclusions to add to yours and possibly replace it:

- maybe people trying that equipment didn't favor clean flat sound.

- maybe most people tried the equipment with another equipment that was harsh or not flat, so people favored something that countered that other equipment instead of something clean. but it had nothing to do with the first one being good.

- the measurements done simply weren't enough (or were false).

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PleasantSounds View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

when you know from reliable measurements(manufacturer specs might not always be it, I admit) and know all the specs are above "great for human", with enough power to drive the headphone(also something not hard to predict with the right measurements). then we know exactly how it will sound.

only when too much imperfection and distortions come out of an amp are we unable to predict how it will sound(chaos theory making a come back, too many parameters for accurate prediction). all good stuff do sound the same because there is only one right way to accurately transmit a signal. and for the amp, that's by transmitting it as it was with gain.

 

This logic is still missing one variable: the headphone. When you plug it in, it becomes part of the amp's circuit and affects its performance. If there was a clear standard in terms what electronic properties a headphone should have, then you could expect to consistently deliver the same experience, irrespective of what is plugged in. With varying headphone impedance and efficiency, amps have to work at different points of their characteristics to handle them. I doubt we have many amps in the market that can drive any headphone to its full potential and still be completely transparent. The ones I know may be good with high or low impedance, high or low efficiency, but not even with every headphone I have.

sure but I don't think that is really unknown. sure I don't have the data sennheiser has on the hd800, so I couldn't make as many predictions. but with just the measurements from innerfidelity, we can take the lowest impedance and higher impedance of the hd800, its sensibility, and predict accurately if one amp will drive it well or not(given we know enough about that amp, so not always possible).

but with the O2 we happens to have a ****load of measurements in various situations. and the truth is that the signal getting out of the hd800+o2 is probably as good if not better than hd800+ half of the available amps worldwide, simply because of roll off, or distortions from so many other amps. it doesn't answer the question "do I like the resulting sound?", and people who wrongly refuse EQ have even less chances to like a flat O2 with the hd800. but still we're far from going on a limb here when we say that a lot of amps can drive the hd800. and I mean driving, not EQing for someone's tastes with a colored amp.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View Post
 

If we're talking about neutrality here, let's skip comparisons to hifi grade components. Why not high end studio gear from Lavry (Gold), Mytek, Solid State Logic, Antelope Audio, Apogee, Dangerous, Crane, Weiss etc. These guys actually make equipment that gets used in professional studios where music is made. Convertor neutrality is obviously a given. I have never ever seen an ODAC or O2 being used in a studio. Why is that? Are all these professionals just stupid to spend $10,000 on converters when they can opt out for a $300 ODAC+O2.

 

I highly recommend people to audition some high end studio converters just for fun. I guarantee that the difference will be huge. I have ABX and double blind before for cables and once with O2 and Emotiva mini (when I initially got it). Those seemed close initially in performance so I thought why not. Although with my current rig and other studio gear that I use from time to time, the difference is so huge in performance that it isn't even worth bothering with any testing. Of course this doesn't mean jack to you guys as you probably still want proper testing done….but seriously try high end professional grade convertors and you'll know within seconds.

 

You don't even have to go spend crazy amount. Even a Emotiva Stealth DC-1 will murder it. Ask anyone that has made that change and they will all pick the DC-1.

as said already this is a pretty lame argument. that's like saying that we need 24/96 because they use that in a studio without even looking up why they made that choice.

pros have pro needs and do a great deal more than just listening to stereo sound, they will always have needs different than ours. and often, pride more than need leads us to pretend that as audiophiles we require pro stuff. because they're up in the process pros must make sure that nobody else will perceive something they didn't, so obviously they need the best products. and often the expensive perks of those pro gears are not even related to listening but just to manipulating the signal.

 

I'll take an unrelated bad example of the same level of justification, when you take a picture in jpg, you don't need a raw converter. yes pros use raw converter all the time, because they use raw files.

post #189 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

It is a fact that both the O2 and the Benchmark products are audibly perfect. 

 

If that's a fact, then I presume there's also evidence to support it?

post #190 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by PleasantSounds View Post
 

 

If that's a fact, then I presume there's also evidence to support it?

There are extensive measurements of both showing that they are audibly perfect in several locations (most notably the website of the designer of the O2, though the O2 measurements have definitely been replicated elsewhere). There have also been double blind tests done which demonstrate the inability of listeners to distinguish between several amps that meet specifications equal to or worse than the O2 or Benchmark.

post #191 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

There are extensive measurements of both showing that they are audibly perfect in several locations (most notably the website of the designer of the O2, though the O2 measurements have definitely been replicated elsewhere). There have also been double blind tests done which demonstrate the inability of listeners to distinguish between several amps that meet specifications equal to or worse than the O2 or Benchmark.

Further complicating the matter is that---due to HeadFi policy---posting links to much of this measurement data is eigentlich verboten. 

 

 

Cheers

post #192 of 239

Quote:

Originally Posted by ab initio View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

There are extensive measurements of both showing that they are audibly perfect in several locations (most notably the website of the designer of the O2, though the O2 measurements have definitely been replicated elsewhere). There have also been double blind tests done which demonstrate the inability of listeners to distinguish between several amps that meet specifications equal to or worse than the O2 or Benchmark.

Further complicating the matter is that---due to HeadFi policy---posting links to much of this measurement data is eigentlich verboten. 

 

 

Cheers


really? I thought that was some kind of urban legend and some voldemortization of character, I really can't get a reason why we would be forbidden from linking useful information? and his blog is full of it.

post #193 of 239
We should not link to the place, but we can use relevant graphs.
post #194 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

Quote:


really? I thought that was some kind of urban legend and some voldemortization of character, I really can't get a reason why we would be forbidden from linking useful information? and his blog is full of it.

 

I have had some of my posts removed that linked directly to certain websites, and then had a PM from the mods saying that linking to the cite was a violation of HeadFi policy. Honestly, I'm not sure if there is a list compiled somewhere of which sites are okay and which are not (I don't think that info is public domain).

 

cheers

post #195 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post
 

 

I have had some of my posts removed that linked directly to certain websites, and then had a PM from the mods saying that linking to the cite was a violation of HeadFi policy. Honestly, I'm not sure if there is a list compiled somewhere of which sites are okay and which are not (I don't think that info is public domain).

 

cheers

True. I had the same experience when I merely mentioned that I was considering buying AKGs from a certain group buy website. No links were posted, just a brief innocent and careless mention on my part.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › HD800 being "picky" with amps myth