[castleofargh]

of course ABX is very limited, if only by the fact that it relies on a guy, and that it serves only one purpose. just like measurements are strictly restricted to the thing measured. TBH I really care for ABX mostly as a personal tool. my point was about people saying they can tell differences better when listening to music with a device for an hour or 2, instead of doing it with a switch and matched levels. I've heard that many times, to be able to relax, get in the mood, take in the music as a whole instead of just a fraction of sound... all seemingly good reasons that at one point I also believed in. except that in practice it doesn't work.
the ability to use a switch or an abx software have opened my "eyes" about how many biases I could fall prey to, even though I was so very wary of them. being aware of the problem never helped me, only removing the bias did. and abx for what it does, is a great way to remove some.
 
back to measurements, I have to agree that looking at one or 2 measurements is not enough to tell much about how good an equipment is. but by multiplying the measurements, we do end up with a fairly good idea.
frequency response alone might not tell everything about how warm something will sound, but if we also have the impedance of both the source and the load, we now usually get a way to estimate the results. given that there will be no major distortions into said load at average listening voltage. so now we need a little more. and with distortion, if they're really high, a reading of odd and even ones can usually predict if it will be subjectively pleasant, or if it may feel lush or dry. and there is no real limit to how much we can gather about a product if many measurements are available.
 
from my point of view what makes measurements so useless in audio is that we don't have enough, and not enough mandatory ones with mandatory ways to take them.  so many manufacturers don't even bother to tell how the measurement was done(when they bother to give some at all). or they don't use the proper way to express the measurement. I suspect that it helps them leaving a blur like that, in case people contest the readings later on that it was A weighed, or into another load, or not up to 20khz... legal escape routes of sorts as a protection against badly done quality control.
many manufacturers really don't make it easy for people to use what they provide.
anyway my experience with the few devices where I could find most of the measurements I was looking for is as such:
I sometimes listened to something I suspected of being real bad(from measurements) that actually sounded nice. extremely rare, but it happened.
on the other hand, I don't remember any product with a lot of measurements telling me I would like it, or that it would be transparent, that ended up sounding bad. so to me measurements do tell a great deal, as long as we get enough and the numbers aren't fake.
 
about method of adjustment, it's another good stuff with its own limitations. I'm very much for any kind of controlled method allowing to get the most reliable results. it's uncontrolled stuff leading to claims that I'm starting to become allergic to in audio ^_^.
for sound having a few sliders to set volume levels, or frequency response or other parameters, needs some practice, probably more than abx. I'm thinking about how making a sound louder and then go back down doesn't put us back to the same perceived sound we had when we started. like listening to a flat sound(at least to us), if we add a few db in bass and then remove them, we will tend to feel like we're lacking in bass, or that the soundstage has collapsed a bit. and we need a little time to go back to our initial perception of the flat response. so I would suspect more failure for people doing that alone at home, and that's probably why people are mostly so bad at using EQ.
I can't imagine the hell it must be sometimes to make sure all biases have been removed when testing on people.
anyway, thanks for the interesting post.

 

[Pirakaphile]

Science can usually provide an answer, but experience gets you a much better result. Or something. 

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

As (science) tool we have measurements.
 
However it's more need for developers. For detecting right direction of development.
 
Currently almost all things we can explain via measured features and diagrams.
 
Except some things like "why CDs from different manufacturers sound differently" and "why FLAC and WAV sound differently" and same things.
 
If even same unexplained things exists, it must have technical reason anyway. Thus we can measure it.
 
However measurements and well known theories often have not wide discussed range of allowable condidions of application.
 
As well known Kotelnikov-Nayquist theorem that applicable for infinite in time and non-quantized by amplitude signal.
 
However via measurements/science we all can talk in one term field.

 

[silverbox]

HD600

 

[bigshot]

I can get a good idea looking at specs whether something is audibly transparent or not. It gets tougher when you talk about imbalances and bad specs, because problems can manifest themselves in different ways. But I can definitely look at the specs on a current iPhone or a decent amp and see that the specs are WAY below thresholds of audibility. I can safely look at those specs and know how it will sound (or more accurately, "not sound").

 

[SandAndGlass]

What about an objective "non-numbers" sense? Even when you look at equipment that has some slight measurable difference at the edge of human hearing--which is the case for some electronics--how do you know that any perceived difference you hear is, in fact, significant? By that I mean, all of the expectation bias possibilities indicate how hard it is to know that with any certainty that you are hearing well or that you are merely perceiving more difference than is there. It's impossible to know how much is being influenced by external psychological factors instead of being a "real" difference. In a way, it is a bit of a fool's errand if the goal is to end up with significantly better sounding equipment.

Then consider that audio memory is very fleeting. I can listen to my desktop dac/amp and compare it to my DAP, and I hear a difference. But if I don't listen to either for a week, I quickly forget that difference because the differences are very minor. Heck. I can reposition headphones on my head slightly and have more of an effect on the sound.

So think about what rovopio said
Is your goal to collect audio equipment and try (as difficult as it is to know) to perceive difference? Or collect equipment that reaches some goal of perfected reproduction? Nothing wrong with that.

if you want to experience the music differently/better, then objective science says headphones and then working with EQ are the way to go. And if you've got THE headphones for you, and spent $100 on a measurebly good DAC and a hundred or two hundred on a measurably good headphone amp that will drive your headphones, my advice for the next good investment in music listening pleasure is to start putting your money towards a good speaker system/setup because of the quite different experience it provides (but be ready to spend more money--LOL).

Your statement "Heck. I can reposition headphones on my head slightly and have more of an effect on the sound."
 
Amen!
 
IMHO, people today waste so much time, money and energy on audio related "improvements", that end up meaning so little.
 
People buy something because it "specs" out better, over another product with not as great specs, but audibly sounds better. People spend stupid money buying "magic" wires and other such nonsense, that don't even have any scientific related specs, to even scientifically prove that it might sound better, even though blind testing can't tell any audible differences.
 
Spend wisely, if you can't hear a distinct improvement, don't throw your money away on snake oil.

 

[bigshot]

Best to look for ACCURATE equipment... the stuff that measures accurate to within the range of human hearing. Outside that? Who cares.

 

[SandAndGlass]

 
Quote/
I know like you and a few other people have said that speakers are a completely different experience and can't be matched on headphones, but this being head fi and all, I pretty much assume everyone is talking headphone setups rather than speakers.  I agree that you don't get that same physical presence as you do with speakers and that's one thing that headphones can never do, but there are advantages - I actually came from speakers to headphones because you don't need a dedicated room or room treatment or have to be sitting in a sweet spot, you can listen to whatever you want, whenever you want, as loud as you want, without annoying other people in your house or your neighbors and you get WAY more sound quality for your dollar.  If I spent $5k on a speaker setup or $5k on a headphone setup, the sound quality of the headphone setup would be way higher than the speaker setup of the same price imo.  Minus, like I said, that physical impact.  I do miss my sub bass. /Quote.
 
 
I personally don't see any reason at all why you could not use a subwoofer along with your headphones. It goes without saying that you wouldn't be using the sub at times when others may be affected by the "boom". You could purchase a small sub for a couple of hundred dollars and listen while you have your headphones on. If you select open back dynamic or planer type headphones, the bass from the sub will pass right through the headphones and in to your head.
 
You really won't need a sub with a whole lot of power, a little 8" 75-watt Martin Logan Dynamo will be sufficient, they do make a larger 10" with a 125-watt amp as a step up, these or any other similar, subs would be all that you need. Plus you will get the tactile feedback of the bass thumping against your chest, it doesn't have to be turned up loud to get the desired bass effect.
 
I have HiFi Man open back planer headphones and sometimes I listen to them while my speakers are playing. This gives me the effect of having music outside of my head and having music inside of my head, along with the subs playing, its a total immersive experience.

 

[cel4145]

Your statement "Heck. I can reposition headphones on my head slightly and have more of an effect on the sound."

Amen!

IMHO, people today waste so much time, money and energy on audio related "improvements", that end up meaning so little.

People buy something because it "specs" out better, over another product with not as great specs, but audibly sounds better. People spend stupid money buying "magic" wires and other such nonsense, that don't even have any scientific related specs, to even scientifically prove that it might sound better, even though blind testing can't tell any audible differences.

Spend wisely, if you can't hear a distinct improvement, don't throw your money away on snake oil.

And then they spend a lot of time on always trying to better things when it might be better spent on enjoying the music

Not saying that there's anything wrong with enjoying the hobby of testing equipment and listening to equipment. But that is somewhat different from focusing on the music. For instance, I can be a photographer who is always trying out the newest latest camera body or lens. Or I can spend my time working with the equipment I have taking pictures, which is a bit of a different goal than finding the best equipment.