If A bought a $2000 DAC and B bought a $150 DAC that he says it is equal to A's, A then listens to B's DAC and insisted that his $2000 DAC is far superior than B's then made him do a blind test and fails to differentiate his and B's for multiple times, then A is an epic fail. Simple as that I guess..
Not necessarily, it has already been mentioned that some people value different aspects of equipment; aesthetics, build quality, functionality, and technological fetishism can be reasons for people to have different ways to value and judge differences between equipment.
What I said numerous times is that there is no SINGLE figure of merit that correlates to imaging, and I still stck by that statement. That's all I said, don't try to change it into something else. If that statement is incorrect, please show me the error of my ways.
In terms of qualifications, for those who are new or simply do not know, I should probably state that my hobby is to measure headphones when I'm not listening to them. These measurements are assembled in one place on the Internet somewhere.
I neither consider myself a subjectivist or objectivist. I like measurements when available, and I am particularly interested in finding measurements which correlate with subjective phenomena. I like to think that while measurements don't explain everything, they can at least keep us honest.
Then, don't do that! . It's just like sinking a bunch of 16d nails with a single whack... If you hit your thumb with the hammer and lose your thumb, it's not the nail's fault, and it's not the hammer's fault. It's the guy what's driving the bus, that's the problem. :rolleyes:
I figured I'd throw my philisophical hat into this fray... maybe a few bullets will head my way.
Back in the 80's Bob Carver challenged The Audio Critic and Stereophile Magazine each to choose any high end amplifier they wanted and he would match the sound quality of the amps with his far cheaper designs..... TAC chose a Michel Levinson model and Stereophile chose a $12K Conrad Johnson rig.... Neither group was able to correctly pick out the high end piece in blind listening sessions despite an $11,000 dollar difference in price to consumers.... Carver won.
Some said it was proof that the Emperor has no clothes, others said the game was rigged... The truth was that no matter which side people fell on with the Carver challenge... everyone took notice of what he did. The subjective impact on our perception is real. And I think it is safe to say that if person A has a $10,000 rig, he is going to prefer it to the sound of a $200 rig regardless of measurements.... that is his subjective bias kicking in...... Acknowledging that and agreeing that there is truth to it. I guess my question to die hard objectivist is.... what is the end game? When the battle is won, where are we?
Do we dismantle the marketplace because we've decided certain companies have overpriced gears? Do we unilaterally toss certain companies out of the market place because their equipment doesn't meet certain "measurements" to justify their price range? I think all the companies who create gears would agree that measurements are important.... but when they are simply used to show how great I am and how much these guys suck, its not helping the community, its just thumbing its nose at it.
I cannot help but draw parallels between Bob Carver and Headfi's most notorious former member as they were both essentially challenging an establishment. When Carver won he used his accomplishments to set up his next venture. It was selfish, but it was honest. I guess that is my point. This O2/ objective argument only has so much life to it unless it chooses to improve the culture.... The O2 is a great amp... But it is not a one sized fits all thing and will not displace the entire marketplace. So its here and some like it and other don't but what else?
If there is no movement towards improving the culture, the community.... It ends up just being a tribe of people thumbing their nose.
We are all big boys capable of making our own decisions in life and deciding how to spend our own money. We don't need someone telling us what and where we should be assigning value.
If I want to buy myself a ridiculously overpriced piece of stereo equipment knowing full well that I can get the same sound quality out of a $500 piece... who's business is it to anyone to tell me how I should or would be better off spending my money?
I've been watching this argument for months now and I don't see where it supposed to go. Do die hard objectivist see a utopia where every manufacturer has to measure certain things and make certain benchmarks to receive certification...... or are objectivist just wanting to establish intellectual superiority over the lemming subjectivists who are tossed to and fro by the seas of headfi.... or do they think the "objective" point of view endows them with the wisdom to make more intelligent decisions about what holds value and to whom it holds value to? Or is it just arguing for arguing sake?
I am not asking to be snarky or rude or mean... I honestly hope someone has a direction they'd like to see things go... I agree with both sides and a disagree with both sides.... and though I affirm the principles behind the objective camp I want to know what the point is..... I get the idea, I agree.... Now what?
Audio gears have the highest gross margin among all electronic products. PC are orders of magnitudes more difficult to design than an amp or a DAC and yet the prices are substantially lower. All DAC manufacturers use DAC chips that are commercially available off the shelf for less than a buck. So if we shop audio amp/DAC like we shop PC, looking at what chip they're using, what kind of PSU etc. The DAC/amp prices will be in the $20 to $30 range.
I am in the chip business. We provide reference design and most manufacturers just copy the design. So it's hard for me to pay $1000 or even $200 when I know the entire bill of material is less than $10. Remember the Grado amp that's really a Cmoy amp? All people are paying is the logo and the case.
All the reviews I read, there is no mention what so ever on what's inside. With PC hardware, you'll get to see what's under the hood. I guess people do not want to know and prefer to pay higher prices for high end. It wouldn't surprise me if the high end DAC and the low end DAC use the same chip. The high performance DAC chip cost about $1.00 while the commodity DAC chips are only about $0.50. What is the difference between "high end" DAC and "low end" DAC now?
Yeah many fail to realize its not just the core pieces of the DAC/Amp. Its also what it is build around. You can have a world class DAC chip wired to ****ty internals and you will get mediocre sound. Same goes for having average core components built around good internals (You can get great sound and even better than some highly touted DAC chips).
Regarding the Carver Challenge comparo with the O2/ ... FWIW, speakers have to deal with many more hurdles than headphones in terms of room interactions. Furthermore, it is possible to test a single driver full range low distortion electrostatic or orthodynamic rig in the headphone world. This is harder in the speaker world. Could be that headphones are more revealing (than speakers) given these (and probably other) considerations... dunno.
I figured I'd throw my philisophical hat into this fray... maybe a few bullets will head my way.
Back in the 80's Bob Carver challenged The Audio Critic and Stereophile Magazine each to choose any high end amplifier they wanted and he would match the sound quality of the amps with his far cheaper designs..... TAC chose a Michel Levinson model and Stereophile chose a $12K Conrad Johnson rig.... Neither group was able to correctly pick out the high end piece in blind listening sessions despite an $11,000 dollar difference in price to consumers.... Carver won.
Some said it was proof that the Emperor has no clothes, others said the game was rigged... The truth was that no matter which side people fell on with the Carver challenge... everyone took notice of what he did. The subjective impact on our perception is real. And I think it is safe to say that if person A has a $10,000 rig, he is going to prefer it to the sound of a $200 rig regardless of measurements.... that is his subjective bias kicking in...... Acknowledging that and agreeing that there is truth to it. I guess my question to die hard objectivist is.... what is the end game? When the battle is won, where are we?
Do we dismantle the marketplace because we've decided certain companies have overpriced gears? Do we unilaterally toss certain companies out of the market place because their equipment doesn't meet certain "measurements" to justify their price range? I think all the companies who create gears would agree that measurements are important.... but when they are simply used to show how great I am and how much these guys suck, its not helping the community, its just thumbing its nose at it.
I cannot help but draw parallels between Bob Carver and Headfi's most notorious former member as they were both essentially challenging an establishment. When Carver won he used his accomplishments to set up his next venture. It was selfish, but it was honest. I guess that is my point. This O2/ objective argument only has so much life to it unless it chooses to improve the culture.... The O2 is a great amp... But it is not a one sized fits all thing and will not displace the entire marketplace. So its here and some like it and other don't but what else?
If there is no movement towards improving the culture, the community.... It ends up just being a tribe of people thumbing their nose.
We are all big boys capable of making our own decisions in life and deciding how to spend our own money. We don't need someone telling us what and where we should be assigning value.
If I want to buy myself a ridiculously overpriced piece of stereo equipment knowing full well that I can get the same sound quality out of a $500 piece... who's business is it to anyone to tell me how I should or would be better off spending my money?
I've been watching this argument for months now and I don't see where it supposed to go. Do die hard objectivist see a utopia where every manufacturer has to measure certain things and make certain benchmarks to receive certification...... or are objectivist just wanting to establish intellectual superiority over the lemming subjectivists who are tossed to and fro by the seas of headfi.... or do they think the "objective" point of view endows them with the wisdom to make more intelligent decisions about what holds value and to whom it holds value to? Or is it just arguing for arguing sake?
I am not asking to be snarky or rude or mean... I honestly hope someone has a direction they'd like to see things go... I agree with both sides and a disagree with both sides.... and though I affirm the principles behind the objective camp I want to know what the point is..... I get the idea, I agree.... Now what?
I only speak for myself, but I'll take a shot at it.
There's a market for the high end, the exotic, the expensive stuff that may not actually measure well at all, and so on, and I don't see a problem with that. What I would like to see is a little bit of greater transparency and more specs listed (and hopefully honest ones). Regardless of what your thoughts are regarding sound quality, everybody could benefit from all manufacturers actually listing max output power levels into 16 ohms / 32 ohms / ... / 600 ohms.
To me, the O2 can be seen as a proof-of-concept demo, challenging the establishment that largely seems to have lost its way (again, my opinion). It shows that high performance is pretty easy; textbook solutions actually work well. You don't need ultra-performance op amps, audiophile-favorite capacitors or other parts, Class A, exotic topologies, antiquated topologies, fully-discrete parts, an active ground channel, balanced drive, or rainbow unicorn droppings. I get that people like to innovate, but for audio, particularly not at the ultra high end, it often seems to me like reinventing the wheel and coming up with an octagon instead of a circle. Unless you need to power something like an HE-6 or an unusually-insensitive headphone to high volumes, you can do it off of a couple of $0.50 op amps.
Unlike many of the other alternatives with maybe similar design objectives and performance, its documentation is quite thorough. It sets out an open standard that hopefully others can surpass—in form factor, battery life, performance, price, features, whatever. (pick one or two out of the above; it's not possible to win on every count of course) It's a challenge that, if one guy can do something largely by himself in his spare time, why can't audio companies offer us something better, cheaper?
I think that there's some small movement towards rethinking amp pricing, what high performance means, expecting more from audio manufacturers. In circles other than dedicated audio forums, there is a greater appreciation for hard numbers, good values, and something like this.
To me, the O2 can be seen as a proof-of-concept demo, challenging the establishment that largely seems to have lost its way (again, my opinion). It shows that high performance is pretty easy; textbook solutions actually work well. You don't need ultra-performance op amps, audiophile-favorite capacitors or other parts, Class A, exotic topologies, antiquated topologies, fully-discrete parts, an active ground channel, balanced drive, or rainbow unicorn droppings. I get that people like to innovate, but for audio, particularly not at the ultra high end, it often seems to me like reinventing the wheel and coming up with an octagon instead of a circle. Unless you need to power something like an HE-6 or an unusually-insensitive headphone to high volumes, you can do it off of a couple of $0.50 op amps.
Unlike many of the other alternatives with maybe similar design objectives and performance, its documentation is quite thorough. It sets out an open standard that hopefully others can surpass—in form factor, battery life, performance, price, features, whatever. (pick one or two out of the above; it's not possible to win on every count of course) It's a challenge that, if one guy can do something largely by himself in his spare time, why can't audio companies offer us something better, cheaper?
The O2 (or ODAC) is not unique with having well documented objectives and documentation (the O2 failed in its portability objectives in many peoples' eyes - many wished the O2 could have been a similar form factor to the iPhone, but I digress). If you've been around the block, you would know of the CMOY, PPA, Pimeta, Dynahi, Dynalo, Beta22, mini3, Gamma1+2, Millet Hybrid, etc. Their development was actually more open and involved many people (engineers and hobbyists who had access to their own test equipment) who are now mostly retired from here. There weren't as many (or any!) dedicated headphone amps back in those days, and people wanted to try "different" stuff (there was a reason for it back then - curiosity - of course it's easy with hindsight to point fingers, get all self-righteous, and deride people from trying "different" stuff, or only relying on "primitive RMAA" instead of using a Prizm dScope.)
From there, many people wanted "better", more fancy designs, i.e. tubes, moar power, prettier enclosures, or "unicorn droppings" as you say. And it all took off.
I'm not sure what you mean by exotic topologies or antiquated topologies. Almost every amplifier circuit in audio was designed 50 years ago. And the stuff that works continues to be used. As for Class A, crossover distortion for class B amplifiers can be seen on the waveform on a scope. Of course that leads to the discussion of feedback, which then leads to the timeless argument of no, minimal, or lots of feedback, which has existed for 50 years.
The point is that we don't have to be self-righteous poopooheads about it. To each his own.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
. It's just like sinking a bunch of 16d nails with a single whack... If you hit your thumb with the hammer and lose your thumb, it's not the nail's fault, and it's not the hammer's fault. It's the guy what's driving the bus, that's the problem. :rolleyes:
