[Audioholic123]

  Well, hard to find anyone who would say otherwise, isn't it? Sorry but from your comments, it's clear you are not particular familiar with critical thinking, or cognitive biases, or self-delusion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

You are just trying to have people believe what you say, and that's ok. Pretty much absolutely everyone is involved in that same endeavor, having others believe what they say or believe. But I'm advocating a bit of skepticism, which is different from simply saying "Oh I know what I'm saying, so believe what I say" (<== ahem, your approach.)

You really are good with words... I point towards a flaw in your theory by indicating an objective truth.The real reason why equipment can get so expensive, you then use terminology to make it seem like i'm wrong. Only what i said can't be debated as it is an electronically measurable thing.

 

[Audioholic123]

Ohh i've killed this thread by exposing the truth....(Que the insults)

 

[Audioholic123]

  caricatures are just that, one way or the other.
each time I read something like this, I think about the ultrasone edition 10. total crap, subjectively and objectively, but the price !!!! oh my what a great reassuring price.

That is just down to poor design. Poor design = poor end product. You still get lambskin leather to wrap around your ears

 

[Audioholic123]

Better internal components mean better sound, this applies to all audio devices:
 

 
 
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/amplifiers.html
 
 
Stay cool

 

[castleofargh]

I see you really want to stick with caricatures.

 

[Audioholic123]

  I see you really want to stick with caricatures.

 A caricature is a descriptive drawing, not words

 

[Roly1650]

 A caricature is a descriptive drawing, not words

You must be getting fed-up with being right all the time........;:rolleyes:

From Mirriam-Webster: ": to do a caricature of (someone or something) : to draw or describe (someone or something) in a funny or exaggerated way."

And: "a representation especially in literature or art that has the qualities of caricature"
(My bold).

It would appear that our French friend has a better grasp of English than you do, (except he can't capitalise or punctuate to save his life ).

 

[rsaavedra]

I point towards a flaw in your theory by indicating an objective truth.

Well wouldn't it be nice if anything one needed to do to pretend to win an argument was to say that one has indicated an "objective truth" to point to an alleged "flaw" in the opponents point of view. Gee, I could write a LOL but it's not funny really. It just shows that besides being self-deluded, you are not good with arguments or argumentation.
 
It would do you good to instead of trolling (and yes, I think you are clearly trolling) maybe read again the link in first post of this thread, and check out what people who do know about engineering and science and audio (unlike you) do say there.
 
Thanks for the compliments about my skill with words though. I'm not a native English speaker actually, but thanks anyway.

 

[arnyk]

   
That's because we often are listening to something better.
 
The quality of components inside an amp dictate the quality of the sound. All electrical engineers know this (my father is one). An amp with dirt cheap components and transistors will convey the signal and that's that. However, one made of top components and transistors with the finest capacitors required to convey the signal, will ultimately output a:
                                                                                   better, more preserved, less degraded  signal.
 
Most of these blind tests are done by guys who aren't electrical engineers...This method of testing equipment is not to be trusted, since it doesn't take other elements into account.
 
 
People seem to want to dis-believe the notion of higher price for better sound, but it is reality...
You have to pay more for a better car, pay more for a better house and so on...

 
 
More likely with headphones: we are listening to something that sounds different.
 
It is untrue that all electrical engineers know that the quality of the components dictate the quality of the sound, or that expensive gear is always made with higher quality or even merely more expensive components.  
 
My dad wasn't an engineer but I am, so I don't have to rely on second-hand knowledge.
 
In fact the ABX procedure was invented and popularized by degreed audio engineers - check out the credentials of David L. Clark who was one of the lead developers who wrote the landmark JAES (referreed) article that first described it and gave all of the relevant technical details including how to build your own ABX gear. 
 
The basic ABX technology has stood the test of time for almost 40 years, and is still widely used among audio professionals. Even people who want to criticize it begrudgingly admit, as happened in a recent AES conference paper by Robert Stuart of Meridian, that it is the gold standard of subjective audio testing.
 
Reality is that if you are careful and not working in a mature technology it is possible to get better performance for more money to a point - that well known point of diminishing returns.  Did your dad teach you about the Law Of Diminishing Returns?   Trouble is, most areas of audio are mature technology.
 

 

[mopatop]

I've long held beliefs that are stated in this article (e.g. inconsequential effects of interconnects) however their statements about amplifiers is patently untrue. How can I trust the rest of their points when the statement "all amplifiers sound the same" is so clearly false?

 

[castleofargh]

  I've long held beliefs that are stated in this article (e.g. inconsequential effects of interconnects) however their statements about amplifiers is patently untrue. How can I trust the rest of their points when the statement "all amplifiers sound the same" is so clearly false?

the claim should be that it's easy to have amps that sound the same. as most changes (outside of real bad, or obviously colored amps), will often come from not matching levels, interactions with the impedance of the headphone, or simply wrong choice of gain and power for said headphone. most of those parameter are known to us, so it's not to hard to create a situation of hardly if at all distinguishable sounds between 2 amps.
 
but then those advices are directed toward people who mostly have no idea what or why impedance would matter, don't always believe that matching levels is very important, and often misinterpret gain as "sounds better on high, because it's "moaaarrrr!!". so to hope to reach most people, we all usually dumb things down a little too much for the message to still be true.

 
like saying that cables don't matter. it's kind of silly, but if it could convey the idea that it's a waste to spend 1000$ on a headphone cable, then I'm all for the silly claim. we shouldn't have to get to that, but real factual science with complete reasoning is too boring for the vast majority of people(else they would have looked it up online on their own already).

 

[Audioholic123]

   
 
More likely with headphones: we are listening to something that sounds different.
 
It is untrue that all electrical engineers know that the quality of the components dictate the quality of the sound, or that expensive gear is always made with higher quality or even merely more expensive components.  
 
My dad wasn't an engineer but I am, so I don't have to rely on second-hand knowledge.
 
In fact the ABX procedure was invented and popularized by degreed audio engineers - check out the credentials of David L. Clark who was one of the lead developers who wrote the landmark JAES (referreed) article that first described it and gave all of the relevant technical details including how to build your own ABX gear. 
 
The basic ABX technology has stood the test of time for almost 40 years, and is still widely used among audio professionals. Even people who want to criticize it begrudgingly admit, as happened in a recent AES conference paper by Robert Stuart of Meridian, that it is the gold standard of subjective audio testing.
 
Reality is that if you are careful and not working in a mature technology it is possible to get better performance for more money to a point - that well known point of diminishing returns.  Did your dad teach you about the Law Of Diminishing Returns?   Trouble is, most areas of audio are mature technology.
 

What amps have you heard??? have you heard a Linn amp???....the difference is disgusting. People can say what they want but i have first hand experience on this...

 

[Audioholic123]

  I've long held beliefs that are stated in this article (e.g. inconsequential effects of interconnects) however their statements about amplifiers is patently untrue. How can I trust the rest of their points when the statement "all amplifiers sound the same" is so clearly false?

That's because the Sound Science section of this website is full of people who are fixated on falsifying the truth. When one loses an argument, 2 or 3 others jump to their defence with even more BS...You will come to realise this as you read there posts.
 
 
If there was no difference in higher audio equipment compared to cheaper equipment, then these guys ( in the video's below) must be crazy. They sound pretty sane to me:
 

 

You'll see them try to argue why the system's in the videos above are not any better than an apple ipod next hahahahaa

 

[RRod]

 
That's because the Sound Science section of this website is full of people who are fixated on falsifying the truth. When one loses an argument, 2 or 3 others jump to their defence with even more BS...You will come to realise this as you read there posts.
 
 
If there was no difference in higher audio equipment compared to cheaper equipment, then these guys ( in the video's below) must be crazy. They sound pretty sane to me:
 
 
You'll see them try to argue why the system's in the videos above are not any better than an apple ipod next hahahahaa

 
So you're saying this defensive jumping doesn't happen in other sections? And the iPod isn't an entire system… I'd bet money on the better models being pretty good performers for a DAC, if you're willing to test with your ears and not your eyes, of course.

 

[Audioholic123]

   
So you're saying this defensive jumping doesn't happen in other sections? And the iPod isn't an entire system… I'd bet money on the better models being pretty good performers for a DAC, if you're willing to test with your ears and not your eyes, of course.

No it happens in all sections. I wouldn't need my ears to be able to tell you that the portable player in the link below, would be better than an ipod for example. Simply because i know that the components inside the device will be of higher quality not forgetting the 24 bit dac inside it:
 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Astell-Kern-Portable-Fidelity-System/dp/B00GXJU5QQ/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1442444483&sr=1-3&keywords=astell+%26+kern
 
I've been listening with my ears to a multi thousand dollar system for years now... quite like the one in the second video above, and all this talk of "no difference" is (from my point of view) making them sound very silly. It begs the question - how many of these people that make such claims have actually heard a multi thousand dollar system?!...