[lee730]

I think in my case while I do like transparency too much of it can be a bit much for me. I like there to be more balance in that regard. I'd rather not hear all the digital artifacts due to conversion if you know what I mean . Then again I don't even think the artists intended for that to be in the music.
 

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

I think in my case while I do like transparency too much of it can be a bit much for me. I like there to be more balance in that regard. I'd rather not hear all the digital artifacts due to conversion if you know what I mean . Then again I don't even think the artists intended for that to be in the music.
 

 
There is that school of thought.  I've gotten used to the fact that my phone rigs are just more transparent than what some people are mastering with or they just don't give a crap.  It's a doubled sword but I like hearing the most of what I can get out of my music, pimples, warts and all.  Tells me the whole story, maybe it's my closet historian?  

 

[lee730]

Not saying its bad in all cases. Especially for really well mastered music where the treble isn't grating I really do enjoy the sound I got from 209. I'm always at battle of finding a balance to my preferred sound. I don't like to overdo it on anything to be honest. But then again I'm more into a more natural sound presentation than opposed to a completely neutral headphone/IEM. I tend to get bored if its too neutral, and therefore won't really be listening to the music . What still gets me though is how some equipment can be so tilted towards treble and still be called neutral? That doesn't mean I don't want the source to be neutral though...
 

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

I tend to get bored if its too neutral
 

 
I'm not sure that's the best word to use in that instance but I know what you are referring to.  It's complicated.  

 

[lee730]

Quote:

 
I'm not sure that's the best word to use in that instance but I know what you are referring to.  It's complicated.  

 
OK I'll try to elaborate more. Dull, lifeless, lacking expression. It's there but its not really there . Worst case is if the treble overpowers the bass . But I know there are many forms of neutrality although that is weird in itself.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

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.

 
Those UHA-6s measurements were buried on his website. Took me a while to find.
 
Nick should write treatises on his design approach, the UHA-6S, how (really not that expensive) his measurement equipment is, complete with lame analogies to shopping, wine, and cars. And then threaten everyone with an upcoming essay on Invicta vs. Omega watches. He could be more famous and sell more of his equipment.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

 
OK I'll try to elaborate more. Dull, lifeless, lacking expression. It's there but its not really there . Worst case is if the treble overpowers the bass . But I know there are many forms of neutrality although that is weird in itself.

 
That doesn't sound like neutral or transparent. That sounds like dull and boring.

 

[lee730]

Quote:

 
That doesn't sound like neutral or transparent. That sounds like dull and boring.

Another form of neutrality ... (neuterality) lol.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

 
Do you think they take a ride and then base the technical claims on the 'oomph-feeling' they got or do you think they measure the 'performance' ?
 

 
For example:  NVH, throttle response, tight vs. loose.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

Yep. I have to call shenanigans on the B22 no subjective listening thing.
"What do the other senses have to do with hearing?" and "We're not talking about cars, refrigerators, toasters or tea kettles."
It's as if somehow audio gear is perceived as different than any other product, or that hearing is more suspect than any other sense. I can't tell the difference between a $12 bottle of Mondavi Cabernet and a 2001 Quintessa ($120), but I've seen experienced sommeliers distinguish between the like, with unerring accuracy, within seconds during a DBT. However, I can tell you which of the 7 different CD releases of FM's Rumours that I own are playing (all ripped to FLAC) without looking. Coincidentally, I heard, and chuckled over, Lindsey's expletive at the beginning of The Chain waaay before it was "revealed" to the world, even though many experts say you can't hear it on vinyl (you can on the 1980 Nautilus pressing, provided your gear is up to the challenge).
With electronics there often is a difference, even if at times it can only be detected over extended listening, but it's up to the listener to decide: 1.) if they care, and 2.) if the added detail and such is worth the oftentimes nosebleed-inducing prices.

 
LOL!
Yes I call BS on it too.
These guys are trying to tell us the designers of the DacMagic and the MDAC do not listen to the various implemenations of the digital filters, they just measure them.
There whole argument is the flip side of the subjectivists argument: no measuring, just listening.

 

[Nom de Plume]

Maybe you can find it in your own response if any portion of my vast reply was insufficient to put the pieces together.
 
Anax

 
You chose a very roundabout way of saying, "It isn't a travesty, but that methodology ought not be praised above others simply because it tickles the objectivist's fancy." (EDIT: Or did I read that wrong?)
Just out of my own curiosity, why did you write all of that as a response to Steve Eddy's post? Steve Eddy has never struck me as a philistine against the "subjectivist" theology.

 

[joeyjojo]

Quote:

 
LOL!
Yes I call BS on it too.
These guys are trying to tell us the designers of the DacMagic and the MDAC do not listen to the various implemenations of the digital filters, they just measure them.
There whole argument is the flip side of the subjectivists argument: no measuring, just listening.

 
Both you and Magick Man should educate yourselves a little more before "calling BS".
 
SE was repeating something I wrote in post 235 of this very thread http://www.head-fi.org/t/619534/i-dont-understand-you-subjective-guys/225#post_8565643
 
Ti Kan writes about it on the History page at http://www.amb.org/audio/beta22/
 
The "aim" of the beta22 was to build an ideal as possible reference amplifier, something like a "wire with gain", which is also fairly straightforward to DIY, and elegant in topology (he seems to like symmetry in his designs). By building on earlier designs, his and others, he used PSPICE to model a new amp, read "Tech Highlights" to get an idea of the design process. When he was happy he built it, measured and listened. Probably a few things were tweaked (as mentioned, high frequency stuff is hard to simulate, maybe some of the small caps changed, who knows?), then the designs were released online.
 
The end result is an amp which is literally orders of magnitude better (in specifications) than anything you can buy commercially. Frequency response is flat from 0 to 2.5 MHz (0 -3dB), phase shift is absent in the audible band and very small at 100 KHz, it's extremely fast (hundreds of volts per usecond) and the output impedance is on the order of copper wire (<0.01 ohm). Distortion figures are limited by the firewire interface he was using, but they are at least THD < 0.001% and THD+N < 0.005% (the limits of the interface) at -3dB output into 33ohms (that's about 2.8Wrms I think).
 
As most on headfi have no interest in EE or DIY they are happy to spend several times what a B22 costs on nice looking tube gear which is frankly crap, technically, compared to this. Apart from high voltage output where a solid state device would be inappropriate (electrostats) the beta22 is I believe the end-game amplifier, which is why I built one

We'll see when it's done...

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Just out of my own curiosity, why did you write all of that as a response to Steve Eddy's post? Steve Eddy has never struck me as a philistine against the "subjectivist" theology.

 
And as I've said already, when it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music, I'm entirely a subjectivist.
 
se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

 
Both you and Magick Man should educate yourselves a little more before "calling BS".
 
SE was repeating something I wrote in post 235 of this very thread

Actually what I was repeating was what I'd read of Ti's posts in the original Beta 22 development thread over on HeadWize which chronicled everything from the original proposal to the production circuit boards.
 
And to address something you said in 235:
 
Quote:

I add emphasis to "quite" as we don't know just how reliable the simulations were or how drastic the changes after hearing the prototype, but I suspect they were very small and the topology changed little, if any.

 
There were no changes. And when Ti listened to it, he made no comment on "how it sounds" in the usual sense. He only listened to make sure there wasn't something funny going on that might have escaped simulation and the measurements taken of the actual prototype.
 
The only changes that were made during the simulation-based design process were changes based on purely objective, technical aspects. In other words, it was entirely a "design by numbers" approach, no different than the O2 in that regard. It was a technical exercise with the prime directive being "throw everything in the book at it" to get the best numbers.
 
This was made rather clear from the start when, in his originally stated design goals, just below his goal that all stages run in pure class A, he wrote:
 
Quote:

2. Superior objective performance criteria: low distortion, high speed/wide bandwidth, high output voltage/current capability, and low noise.

 
Absolutely nothing in the design goals about it being a good sounding amp. Effectively what he was saying was that good numbers = good sound.
 
se

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

 
Both you and Magick Man should educate yourselves a little more before "calling BS".
 
SE was repeating something I wrote in post 235 of this very thread http://www.head-fi.org/t/619534/i-dont-understand-you-subjective-guys/225#post_8565643
 
 

 
You need to get your facts straight.
I called BS.

Magick Man called Shenanigans.

 
This is a weird argument.
What is the point?
The audio designer does not need to listen to his audio design?
The guy who designed the tea kettle will never use his design to boil water for a cuppa smuthin'?
 
OK, I throw in the towel.
For the record, let us stipulate that I am an idiot.
I will bow out and use my spare time to continue reading my book: "The Guns of August".