[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

The travesty is in NOT doing our best to figure out what's going on. If you have two amps that "measure the same but sound different", then the only way to improve the situation is to take more measurements until you figure out what the difference is. Our ability to measure far exceeds our ability to hear. If you hear a difference, then it CAN be measured once you figure out what to measure. Then, once you have that, you can figure out what caused that difference and, the next time, you will be able to build one that sounds the way you like without a lot of trial and error. This is how science works.

 

 
Sure.
 
But in the case where there's no measurable difference that's within known audible thresholds (which is really where all the controversy is), first you have to establish that there actually is an audible difference. Because until you do, you don't know whether there's anything to be looking for to begin with. And you have to establish there's actually an audible difference with something more than just "This sounds different to me." But so far, while many have made claims of audible differences, no one to date has been able to properly demonstrate that that's the case.
 
The Great Wait continues.
 
se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

I don't know anything about the guy so I don't rule out anything. Maybe his perception of time is as prone to bias as hearing?

 
It's not an issue of time. It's about his stated reason for bothering to listen at all. Which was simply to make sure nothing was broken, not to assess "sound quality."
 
se

 

[germanium]

Quote:

 
The misrepresentation is yours. The comment about being a travesty was germanium's, not purrin's. 
 
And what analogy of mine are you referring to? I simply asked what makes it a travesty if something is designed "by the numbers" and not listened to in order to tweak it and make it sound better by ear.
 
I don't see any analogy in that question.
 
se

 Travesty is just a different word for what Purrin said that essentialy meant the same thing as what Purrin said.
 
 By the way I never said that any thing could't be built by the numbers & be successfull but often it is not especially if cheap parts are used. Some built with cheap parts may in fact & often does measure well as long as other things are done correctly but don't expect it to sound the best as it won't in most cases. Often times the pencil pushers win & the consummer loses
 
 TheX- Fi Elite pro is a perfect example, The thing measured very well but sound improvement was very lacking compared to the lower X-Fi cards The X-Fi titanium HD was much better in terms of stock sound quality but still has some very rough edges in the treble that sound unnatural. My mods have fixed that while improving all the other areas of sound as well

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

 Travesty is just a different word for what Purrin said that essentialy meant the same thing as what Purrin said.
 
 

 
Ok. Since "travesty" was your word, perhaps you could explain exactly just what the travesty is.
 
Quote:

By the way I never said that any thing could't be built by the numbers & be successfull but often it is not especially if cheap parts are used. Some built with cheap parts may in fact & often does measure well as long as other things are done correctly but don't expect it to sound the best as it won't in most cases.

 
What exactly do you mean by "cheap parts"? What would be an example of a "cheap part" and a "not cheap part"?
 
Quote:

TheX- Fi Elite pro is a perfect example, The thing measured very well but sound improvement was very lacking compared to the lower X-Fi cards The X-Fi titanium HD was much better in terms of stock sound quality but still has some very rough edges in the treble that sound unnatural.

 
Were you able to establish that you could identify the one card from the other without peeking? If not, then this is just a bunch of verbiage.
 
se

 

[germanium]

This is Purrins words.
 

1. Everything would sound like that fricking O2 amp if no one ever dared to say "I trust my ears" and relied on their 'scopes. And that would be horrible, just absolutely horrible.

 
The O2 is an example of an amp that measured well but to his ears was lacking compared to other better units.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

This is Purrins words.
 

1. Everything would sound like that fricking O2 amp if no one ever dared to say "I trust my ears" and relied on their 'scopes. And that would be horrible, just absolutely horrible.

 
The O2 is an example of an amp that measured well but to his ears was lacking compared to other better units.

 
Sure, to his ears. But I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would prefer the O2 over the same amps in his example.
 
So where does that leave us except with just a bunch more words?
 
se

 

[lee730]

I agree it is a great amp and at it's price point it really does put other amps in higher price ranges to shame. That doesn't mean it puts them all to shame. My UHA6 MKII IMO is a significant upgrade over the O2. Considering its price difference and features I'd sure hope so for that matter. If its any consolation I'll be keeping them both for different purposes. The O2 is really good with Rock on my IE80s and is enough for me to keep it.
 

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

My UHA6 MKII IMO is a significant upgrade over the O2. 

 
Same, that's why I still own it and others (3 I personally know) have the same sentiments wrt the same comparison.  

 

[lee730]

Quote:

 
Same, that's why I still own it and others (3 I personally know) have the same sentiments wrt the same comparison.  

To add to that I also preferred my former UHA4 over the O2 Amp for various reasons. The sound signature was more agreeable across the board in general. The digital pot is amazingly good for low volume listening without channel imbalance (I still have this issue on the O2 even after doing the low gain mod myself). I like to be a purist and not alter the signal at all but have to due to the excessively loud volumes. Plus the UHA4 has cross-feed and is noticeably more portable. Sadly my unit grew legs so I don't have such luxury anymore . Anaxilus do you think the Pico Slim is worth purchasing over the UHA4? I was skeptical about this and was kinda led to believe its just more of a luxury item than for the basic functions (including sound).

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Anaxilus do you think the Pico Slim is worth purchasing over the UHA4?

 
Hmm, well that's rather personal for those of us using ears in the end.  I personally sold the Slim because for my ears there a bit of a bass boost in the low end that was too far off neutral for my tastes.  Although the FR is basically flat it seems there might be a sub bass distortion affecting harmonics in the low end just a smidge.  My ears here it as do a few others I've talked to, many don't notice it all or even prefer it.  I can see why some like it for many reasons, just not me at that price point.  I even had the limited edition w/ the lifetime deal I snagged up for a good price.

 

[lee730]

Quote:

 
Hmm, well that's rather personal for those of us using ears in the end.  I personally sold the Slim because for my ears there a bit of a bass boost in the low end that was too far off neutral for my tastes.  Although the FR is basically flat it seems there might be a sub bass distortion affecting harmonics in the low end just a smidge.  My ears here it as do a few others I've talked to, many don't notice it all or even prefer it.  I can see why some like it for many reasons, just not me at that price point.

Well to be honest I like bass but I don't want any added distortion to it. I noticed this on my DX100 with the most recent firmware and couldn't understand why most others cannot hear that. Its very noticeable and I could only find that firmware somewhat listenable when EQ was enabled. While on 1.1.7 no EQ was needed at all and it sounded very organic, natural, and the detail/micro detailing are spot (not artificially boosted). I have a feeling it is due to having to accommodate for Power Amp and the android system. But if you had to pic between the Pico or the UHA4 what would you pick?
 
I also like the fact that I don't have to worry about damaging my IEMs when powering on or off the UHA4 unlike what I've heard regarding the Slim.....

 

[Anaxilus]

If I had to UHA4.

 

[purrin]

The UHS-6S sounds better than the O2 to my ears. (Got them right in front of me - will do the long term black-box tests next.) The UHS-6S actually has a better suite of measurements which are more meaningful than the existing O2 measurements (which really are very cookie-cutter type measurements):
 
http://www.leckertonaudio.com/2011/01/uha-6s-harmonic-distortion/
 
I like seeing across the audio band, THD+N, D2, D3 at low/realistic power levels (1mW and 10mW) into varying loads (32ohms and 300ohms). The astute objectivist easily sees how much more meaningful Nick's measurements are compared to others'.
 
Based on this objective data, people should be going gaga over this amp. For $279, it even includes a USB/Optical/Coax DAC, and it's truly pocket portable too. And as I've said, it subjectively sounds good too - the best portable amp I've ever heard short of that new $$$ ALO piece.

 

[lee730]

Quote:

The UHS-6S sounds better than the O2 to my ears. (Got them right in front of me - will do the long term black-box tests next.) The UHS-6S actually has a better suite of measurements which are more meaningful than the the existing O2 measurements:
 
http://www.leckertonaudio.com/2011/01/uha-6s-harmonic-distortion/

I wonder what amp is being used in comparison. ...

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

The UHS-6S sounds better than the O2 to my ears. The UHS-6S actually has a better set of measurements which are more meaningful than the the existing O2 measurements:
 
http://www.leckertonaudio.com/2011/01/uha-6s-harmonic-distortion/

 
If I may add, the stock opamp was the 8610 in the UHA6S  I bought a unit w/ the 8610, 209 and 627 to compare as I considered it a FOTM device based on the impressions at the time.  I was floored at how much better it was than my other devices and found the opa209 to be more transparent via listening compared to the others when using the UHA6S.  I mentioned it to Nick and began recommending it around here and apparently the popularity grew enough to where it's now the default opamp in the mk2.  Although the mk1 was measured and performed well, Nick tells me that the 209 actually has slightly lower distortion numbers and it's not a bank breaker at all.  So for me personally, I'm glad that ears and measurements could go hand in hand even if there are those that say these miniscule differences are beyond audibility and would prefer everyone to believe in the same absolutism they do.