[Bilavideo]

Stunning article, totally refreshing.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinesekiwi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also although the blind ABX test is sound (mind the pun), the way that most people conduct it isn't at all thus there are significant flaws with blind ABX testing due to this. e.g. you must account for all these factors: * Position of the headphone on your head * Amount of wax buildup in the ear * Codec (mp3 significantly drops off after 16kHz vs. other codecs and represents treble frequencies horribly) * The song / passage (the fact remains that most songs just don't have significant treble in quantity at all) * The 'heard' misconception that a high amount of mids = treble * Ambient noise (masking of particularly bass frequencies) All these must be equal or minimised = good luck achieving that.

Those really aren't problems. As long as the variables were controlled for (which would be easy to do), ABX testing would remain valid. How is having wax in my ears going to affect how I hear cable 1 versus cable 2 if the same volume of wax is present in my ears during the comparison? The wax is constant in both tests and therefore not a factor.

All experimental models aren't perfect, but you simply control as many variables as possible, not write-off the method as flawed and unworthy of performing.

 

[Raez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please don't tell me what I heard.

You heard errors, you guessed 9/10 correctly, or you are lying. Randomness does have repeats.

Maybe you should learn a little more about how digital media works, because it sounds like you have absolutely 0 idea what you are talking about.

 

[Zombie_X]

LOL I believe a bunch of what that article stated, though I believe cables make a difference to an extent.

[flamesuit]
There' no way a $6k cable will better a $100 cable IMO (Looking at you Esoteric), copper is copper no mater how you wire it. Once you get to the highest purity, there is no way to improve upon it. Shielding and insulation will help with RFI, but fancy wiring and other crap wont effect the sound at all.
[/flamesuit]

 

[Bilavideo]

I agree. It's really about measuring up to what is needed without making unnecessary shortcuts. There's some very cheap, substandard wire that can limit performance. You'll find it used on headphones that look like toys from the redemption center of a Chuck E. Cheese. There's also better wire, industry-standard stuff, used on better equipment. Once you get there, the rest is just hype.

I wouldn't use $10 wire on a pair of $500 headphones, but for $40, you get what you need and for $100, the issue is beyond resolved. If you're paying more for your headphone cable than you did for the headphone, something is seriously screwed up.

 

[Raez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilavideo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree. It's really about measuring up to what is needed without making unnecessary shortcuts. There's some very cheap, substandard wire that can limit performance. You'll find it used on headphones that look like toys from the redemption center of a Chuck E. Cheese. There's also better wire, industry-standard stuff, used on better equipment. Once you get there, the rest is just hype. I wouldn't use $10 wire on a pair of $500 headphones, but for $40, you get what you need and for $100, the issue is beyond resolved. If you're paying more for your headphone cable than you did for the headphone, something is seriously screwed up.

Even that i disagree with, respectfully of course. $10 wire on $100,000 headphones should be more than fine. Wire, within reasonable boundaries, is wire.

 

[Antony6555]

Considering head-fis general position on the objective/subjective debate, I sometimes wonder whether after discovering head-fi the average person comes out with a more or less accurate understanding of audio.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I for one am more concerned about the skeptics' usual attitude of equating negative DBT results with the proof that the investigated differences don't really exist. (Moreover, positive results don't seem to leave traces in their minds, like my own.)

Testing methodology and results; where are they? Were said findings published?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antony6555 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Considering head-fis general position on the objective/subjective debate, I sometimes wonder whether after discovering head-fi the average person comes out with a more or less accurate understanding of audio.

The first thing I do if someone is going to head-fi is tell them to take everything within a grain of salt . . . and leave their wallets locked. The only person that has their well being in mind is them, it's better to be a rich skeptic than a poor believer IMO.

 

[spinali]

It's interesting that cable burn-in is regarded as one of the major "lies" - and I happen to agree with that. The author also acknowledges that break-in (note the correct choice of words) is a verified reality with speakers.

The idea of headphone break-in is glossed over in the article. Maybe other "lies" deserve a more rigorous treatment; or maybe, the idea has achieved enough respect to be considered seriously.

 

[tvrboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasmb /img/forum/go_quote.gif A fine article. Let's just, for a second, assume that everything in it is true. Does this invalidate audiophilia? Or does it merely underscore that the hobby is more or less about the satisfaction that comes from listening critically to beloved passages, leading to a confirmation bias? Dropping two grand on a power conditioner for no theoretical benefit seems pretty ridiculous to some, but so would dropping two grand on a cruise where you never leave the cabin. A journey is not a commodity; how you enjoy it defines its value. And if, at the end of your journey, you arrive at port with a souvenir in the form of a Jolida CD player with an all-tube gain stage, all the better. People ask me what's the sonic purpose for the wooden resonance chambers on the RS-2s. I say they do important three things. First, their opulence makes me smile, giving me a positive point of view whenever I listen. Second, they look awesome, encouraging me to listen more. Third, they make people ask that question, prompting me to share the music. Whatever they may do for the sound, these aspects are more important.

This made my day. Can I put this quote in my sig?

 

[plonter]

don't know about you guys,but for me the music and the sound is in first place. and I love the wooden cups on my RS1 because they make them sound really great. the truth is, that wood sound good and better than plastic. that's why most speakers use it, and that's why they use it with headphones too. I couldn't care less about the beauty of my gear and all related stuff. but that's me.

about the article,it was very interesting read but I have no true comments about it since I am very lacking in scientific knowledge and experience. I always settled for mid-priced interconnects just to be on the safe side. I agree 100% percent that trusting your ears is important, and sometimes it takes some time of trying different gear and cables in different level of cost just to realise that.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif X2 - The level of magical thinking on this forum is frankly dismaying, if I had a dollar for very time someone spoke about such and such being bright or dark or recessed or forward when they have an objectively verifiable razor flat FR - sheesh !

What? That is rediculous. Give me a list of audio components that measure flat, and then tell me just 2 of them that sound the same. Not possible because they don't. And how do you measure the frequency response of headphones with the complexity of the human ear. Weak.

 

[rhythmdevils]

I do think there's a lot of snake oil in audio, but this author is really on a mission here and likes being the guy whose proving a bunch of people wrong, and is therefore simplifying things to make them more black and white, and therefore more convincing- like a politician. It seems he is attacking audiophiles for wanting something to be true, and so believing in it, and often making up science jargon to support their claims. Seems to me by the black white way in which he is approaching this, that he is doing the same thing- but to support his claim that we're all dimwits.

Cables, at least on headphones do make a difference. I recently bought a 160 dollar used Silver dragon cable (350$ new), and there is a difference, mostly much more treble, and a colder sound. But I think my Oelbach sounds better. I also got an equinox, and though i didn't do much testing, any difference there might have been was really subtle because it didn't seem to change the sound sig of the phones like the silver dragon, and the stiffness of the cable was more of a detriment to my listening experience then whatever I was loosing with the Oelbach, so I went back to it.

That experience just doesn't fit into the theory that you hear a difference because you're expecting it to sound better. If that were the case, the Silver Dragon would have sounded better, and the Equinox as well, esspecially the equinox, because it didn't have a dramatic elevation of treble or anything, so was open to hearing all kinds of subtle refinements, etc.

Also, there is clearly more to sound then what measures best. We all know that tubes introduce distortion, and so does Vinyl, and that it sounds more like real life because of it. Same as the film vs. digital debate. I still think medium/large format film looks better, because the circles are round instead of square, which looks more like real life....

But you are never going to see me using expensive power cables

 

[John2e]

Anyone who has owned the Sen 650 and tried various cables, will attest to the fact that cables affect the sound...

 

[John2e]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinali /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's interesting that cable burn-in is regarded as one of the major "lies" - and I happen to agree with that. The author also acknowledges that break-in (note the correct choice of words) is a verified reality with speakers. The idea of headphone break-in is glossed over in the article. Maybe other "lies" deserve a more rigorous treatment; or maybe, the idea has achieved enough respect to be considered seriously.

Headphones have moving parts as such fall under the speaker catagory. Now IEM's that's another debate