[Prog Rock Man]

Not only does the audio cable industry need to come up with various measurements, they need to show a correlation between the measurements and sound quality. For example, higher resistance and more people report in a blind test that they prefer the sound of that cable.

 

[haloxt]

Not going to happen. That's like the UN telling North Korea they need to reveal their nukes.

 

[fishski13]

i consider both the source and amp to be of equal importance.  HP cables are a nice tweak/tone control, and ICs are a distant 3rd. 
 
while i value measurements, they're not an indicator of absolute sound quality.  this may sound flip, but some people want to listen to a recording, and some people want to listen to the real thing.  there will never be an agreement on what is "accurate".. 
 
getting the best out of your DAC with a bit-perfect conversion to analog is a hurdle.  while i prefer my y2 to the BM DAC1 with any amp driving K702, the DAC1 partnered with a sympathetic amp and cans can sound amazing.  the DAC1 is a benchmark.   
 
amps have different flavors and different topologies that can work better than others depending on the cans and source.
 
there's no magical percentage or formula. 
 
Shike,
IMHO, while i prefer the B22 with the K702, the M3/o11 partnered with the K601 represent a pretty firm benchmark where the the law of diminishing returns kicks in hard if you value "the recording" and "hi-rez" while still being able to emote emotion.  the B22/K702 do this better, but at a cost.
 

 

[JamesL]

Quote:

In theory, the DAC is the second most important component after your source file.  In practice its not very hard to make a very good DAC.  Consequently, there are lots of good, cheap DACs.  Even crappy onboard sound half qualifies.  If the manufacturers spent a few extra bucks to properly shield the analog side of the circuit they'd be pretty close to the specs of the big (in this world, anyway) names.  I'd bet good external DAC or soundcard for around $200 will probably get you 90% of perfect, unless you've got unusually sharp hearing.  An equally good amp will be a lot more money.  It all depends on what kind of 'phones you're driving with it though.  Good synergies can save you a lot of money in that department.

Agreed..
The 7.1 channel DAC's on even high-end desktop motherboards probably cost no more than few dollars to implement.  If those motherboard manufacturers allocated even $20 on a quality stereo DAC, they'd have a very competent solution sitting at the base of a very steep price/performance cliff... 

 

[Shike]

Quote:

while i value measurements, they're not an indicator of absolute sound quality.  this may sound flip, but some people want to listen to a recording, and some people want to listen to the real thing.  there will never be an agreement on what is "accurate".. 

Accurate can only mean one thing in this context - and that's too the signal.  If you want to hear the real thing, go to a concert - you're never going to get the "real thing" on a system made for reproduction.  It's like trying to extract lossless information out of a 64 kbps MP3 - if the information doesn't exist there isn't magical recovery of it.
 
If someone says they like the subjective or instrumental qualities of a transducer that's one thing, but it's still not "real" or "accurate".
 
 
Quote:

getting the best out of your DAC with a bit-perfect conversion to analog is a hurdle.  while i prefer my y2 to the BM DAC1 with any amp driving K702, the DAC1 partnered with a sympathetic amp and cans can sound amazing.  the DAC1 is a benchmark.  

 
The Benchmark DAC is one of the best engineered models around - I don't think you need a "sympathetic amp" (though I'm not exactly sure what you mean).  You may prefer a different sound though - which is okay - as long as you understand it's not reproducing the signal as close as possible.  I'm of the opinion it costs more to go after a tuned sound you enjoy though than reproducing a signal properly (for the most part).
 
Of course, if the Y2 is fully built out I doubt you'd tell a difference.
 
 
Quote:

amps have different flavors and different topologies that can work better than others depending on the cans and source.
 
there's no magical percentage or formula.

 
After a certain point though the differences in the topologies (in solid state) begin to matter less and less at an extremely fast rate.  If you're going to fight over .00001% THD for example than there's an issue larger than the amp
 
 
Quote:

 
Shike,
IMHO, while i prefer the B22 with the K702, the M3/o11 partnered with the K601 represent a pretty firm benchmark where the the law of diminishing returns kicks in hard if you value "the recording" and "hi-rez" while still being able to emote emotion.  the B22/K702 do this better, but at a cost.

 
Actually, the K601 is a better transducer for reproduction (it's flatter, offers better square wave performance, and similar THD below 1%).
 
As for the B22 v. M3 - I stand by what I said earlier.  As long as you meet the requirements and measure well enough there isn't going to be an audible difference.  Heck, a Mini^3 could drive the K601 sufficiently well within spec (I've done it).  A lot of exotica amp designs are redundant musings to a certain point to appease the tweako superstition crowd that plagues high-end audio.  Now the same wouldn't hold true trying to power a HD650 - it has an impedance curve that can hit 600ohms and drive the amp to clip over a good chunk of the range.  So making sure the amp is sufficient for the transducer (or that you limit which transducer you use) is important.
 
 
If you like the sound of the B22 and the K702 though, no one's stopping you.  While not as accurate it's still closer than many and has low distortion  It may be up someone's ally if they like the FR tilt towards treble with a bit of bass roll-off.  Personally, I'd get an accurate system and just use an equalizer - but that's just me

 

[fishski13]

Shike,
i build and listen for myself.   

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Shike,
i build and listen for myself.   

Your ears aren't precision measuring equipment, or do you use your fingers as a multimeter too?

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

Quote:

Shike,
i build and listen for myself.   

Your ears aren't precision measuring equipment, or do you use your fingers as a multimeter too?

They are for subjective sound quality determination.

 

[SP Wild]

and effective evaluation of noises - at least that's what science taught me.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

They are for subjective sound quality determination.

You're missing what I was getting at with him - he says there's accurate to recording and accurate to real life and is arguing that by listening he can get accurate to a real life performance via the same recording apparently.
 
That is simply not the case.  It's still inaccurate whether his subjective impressions lean one way or another - measurements prove that.  He's also not going to extract information that simply isn't there by changing his system - it may strike him as closer to a concert or a real life performance - but inherently isn't and won't ever be as long as mastering is present on the mix.  Unless he has the masters before they're modified this will always be the case - it will be a mere "interpretation" of the recording, or to the cynics in us it's just wrong (for reproducing the signal).

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

You're missing what I was getting at with him - he says there's accurate to recording and accurate to real life and is arguing that by listening he can get accurate to a real life performance via the same recording apparently.

There are almost no accurate to real life recordings to listen to.  Without some kind of revolution in mastering of commercial music, you're never going to get a 'live' sound from your equipment.  Until someone starts releasing live binaural recordings and/or really good HRTFed mixes we will all have to make due with with what we have.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I like live in the studio recordings. One of the best is Neil Young and Crazy Horse 'Ragged Glory'. You can here they are playing together, live in a studio that must be a big shed going by the acoustics. A really detailed system will bring that out. 

 

[SP Wild]

Norah Jones, live on DVD.  With the right equipment, the audio matches the visual.
Quote:

There are almost no accurate to real life recordings to listen to.  Without some kind of revolution in mastering of commercial music, you're never going to get a 'live' sound from your equipment.  Until someone starts releasing live binaural recordings and/or really good HRTFed mixes we will all have to make due with with what we have.

 

[maverickronin]

I said almost.  What percentage of the sum of recorded music do those kinds of things actually add up to?
 
I'd be surprised if it was greater than .5%
 
I am just guessing though.  Any actual statistics would be welcome.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

There are almost no accurate to real life recordings to listen to.  Without some kind of revolution in mastering of commercial music, you're never going to get a 'live' sound from your equipment.  Until someone starts releasing live binaural recordings and/or really good HRTFed mixes we will all have to make due with with what we have.

That was pretty much my point.  You can't get accurate to real life just by changing transducers, you can get what you think sounds "more real", but you'll never actually get it without very specific changes to how mixes are done.

 
Quote:

I like live in the studio recordings. One of the best is Neil Young and Crazy Horse 'Ragged Glory'. You can here they are playing together, live in a studio that must be a big shed going by the acoustics. A really detailed system will bring that out. 

I'm still not sure if you're understanding what I'm saying.  Subjectively it may sound live to you, but no matter what you're not going to actually hear what a live performance of it sounds like without having a drastically different master or hearing it for yourself.  The final product is always mastered with some changes - sometimes to kill resonance or add effects on.  Some are better at staying closer to what was recorded than others - but as long as there's changes you'll never get the "real life" sound out of them.  A transducer/amp change doesn't fix this.
 
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SP Wild
 
Norah Jones, live on DVD.  With the right equipment, the audio matches the visual.

 
Is it lossless?  Does it have the exact same dispersion characteristics of being in one place compared to the band?
 
I fail to see what being in sync with the visual matters at this point - you still have mastering that was done after the fact, you're using transducers for reproduction so if the master IS done "to life" (minimal with nothing done, which is already improbable at best), now your system must measure as best as possible for reproduction of the signal which immediately contradicts using transducers to "fix" a "recording" to "make it sound accurate to life".
 
 
 
To sum up the points, some subjectivists are saying "I'm going to fix the sound to real life!" by changing their gear without a true point of reference to what that even means, claiming they can undo the effects of the mastering without actually knowing what was done.  On the odd case they do get a recording that can said to be close to real life with minimal fixes (rare in itself), you need a setup that measures well for reproduction.  Ironically the system they used earlier to "fix" the sound according to them will actually get one further away from "real life" accurate at such a point.