[Chef]

I'm by no means a audiophile veteran, but I know crap when I see it.

How many times do I have to read non-sense about 'well it sounds good to my ears!' or 'I like a lot of bass, so these are good for me!' ?

I don't care! Not only is that highly subjective and so therefore useless information (oh, your ears like this sound? Can I borrow them?) what is it doing on a website about fidelity?

The definition of fidelity, especially when referring to audio and/or visual entertainment, is the loyalty to the original work, and the accuracy of its reproduction. High fidelity just means it's a REALLY accurate reproduction.

Do you understand what I'm getting at? There's no room in that definition for 'preference' or 'opinion.' There shouldn't be any room for preference and opinion on a forum devoted to hi fi either.

Next time you try to describe the sound of a pair of headphones or amp or whatever, please make sure you're comparing the sound of your equipment to the sound of the original production. It's useless to say that the bass on a song doesn't feel strong enough, if the artist never wanted the bass overpower the song. Same goes with vocals that are 'bright.' If you want to change an artist's song, call it a remix. Don't waste your money on equipment devoted to accurate reproduction.

To put it short: The most ideal comparison of hi fi equipment's quality is between it, and the equipment the artist used to produce it. The more similar they are, the better. Don't tell me the HD650's are 'bassier' than the HD600s, tell me which one reproduces the song you're talking about better. Cause that's the whole point.

 

[vhbaske]

Hey, and what do you say about this much common saying around here:
"Today I received equipment X through the mail, I tested it and it is better than Y "

 

[Chef]

I say if they AB tested it, they are an idiot. If they did a volume matched ABX test and post the results, I am happy to read the data. Obviously that's virtually impossible with headphones, but with amps, cables, dacs, whatever other part of the supposed audio-chain, it's not that difficult with a little know how. Note, again, the importance that it is volume matched and blind. If the volume is different, then of course they will be able to tell the equipment apart

In general though, I suspect most dramatic improvements in quality that head-fiers experience are increases in volume

 

[vhbaske]

You have written something that I have observed in the quality of audio files. flac files have more volume than the 320k MP3, and Apple Lossless files more volume than all. I suppose that when there is better quality it must have more volume than the other. Lossless files are bigger than lossy ones, full frequency response must include all of the original volume of the music. It is true that I have observed that the better quality files have more volume. Although volume is not quality, high volume includes more info than low volume files.

 

[Chef]

If you visit HydrogenAudio.org you can look for listening tests done by hundreds of people comparing different bitrates. When the volumes are matched, at 192 kb/s people tend to stop being able to tell the difference. At 128 kb/s (last time I check) about 50% of the files had a noticeable artifact somewhere in them from careful listening (and often just knowing where to look).

Flac files having more volume than 320 kb/s probably has more to do with how hard it is for the device to decode the data than it does with there being more humanly audible information... I don't really know much about it. I've heard the same and maybe repeated it in ignorance, but I can't tell you if it's true. Maybe create a playlist with a flac file and an mp3 file both 10 seconds in length and of the same part of the file, then put it on repeat and see if you can accurately stop it consistently when it's louder. Obviously do it blind and make sure you don't know what it's on when you begin listening.

It doesn't really seem important though, and you're not asking a great audio expert... I've just read the hydrogenaudio forums and asked a lot of questions in a lot of different places. My first hand and technical experience is very limited.

 

[vhbaske]

Well , it happens like me, many things I cannot tell because I do not have too much evidence about them. I just tell things how I hear them. And, by the way, have you seen how beautiful those cables look? Wow, if I had the money I bought from them just for the aesthetic look.

 

[Chef]

I think when it comes to audio, if you don't have the resources and data to know for sure what's best, it's better to think 'if it's not bad, it's probably good.' I mean, if you can't pinpoint the difference and know exactly where to blind test something to verify, you're not really missing out on the artist's intention.

Just enjoy music

I think it would be not too hard to find a material you can wrap around your wire to make it more beautiful. Ask someone with electrical what types of material are safe for that application. I bet a string wrapped around the cable would work fine!

 

[vhbaske]

Funny, thanks!

 

[JxK]

What I want to say is that in most cases it is impossible to know exactly how something sounds in reality. First of all, any CD you buy has already been equalized through and through by sound engineers. Then your own system, be it headphones or speakers, will add its own coloration. Thus, you almost always have to equalize your own stuff to bring it in line with what you think the recording is supposed to sound like.

And even live performances are almost always broadcast via speakers which invariably add some coloration. To say nothing of the importance venue plays, eg. is it open or closed? In fact, I'd wager that the only sort of music which you could truthfully compare to the "real" performance would be the unamplified kind. Which basically leaves it to chamber music and a few orchestras.

Edit: so to reference your HD650 vs HD600 comparison...you may not want to say that the 650 is bassier than the 600. But it would be fair to say that the bassier 650 is better suited (ie. reproduces with more perceived accuracy) X types of music and the 600 does the same for Y types of music.

 

[Chef]

I wrote this months ago lol, I've learned a lot since then. Thanks though! ^^ You're right about chamber music being basically the only thing with fidelity compared to a live performance. However, I think that it's important to think about studio albums as well... We want to hear what the person who mastered the sound heard (hopefully an artist!), and therefore we want a system that can replicate his in terms of sound reproduction.

My talk about the HD650 was based on what I've read in the forums when I was trying to find information on headphones.... It is not my own opinion.

I think really, fidelity is difficult thing to verify, so these days I just look for recordings that I think are really well done, and hope to eventually find information about whether or not I am really hearing what was intended. In my experience though, I've started to believe there is really not many reasons to believe anything is producing sound better than anything else, when it's reasonably well build and distortion isn't obvious. Therefore my main concern with headphones is how comfortable they are, which leads me to circumaural for home listening, and earphones for daily travel. I no longer buy into the idea that well built equipment is any worse than hi-fi equipment.