whitedragem
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Posts
- 619
- Likes
- 631
what is head-fi (to me)? OR what is ’head-fi’ to the uninitiated? (“I’ve heard crazy things about you zealots...”)
Greets &or “good morrow”, where-ever and when-ever this may be, for you.
Thankyou for reading random threads, on a site pseudo dedicated to discussing audio.
‘Psuedo’?
A quick google has Psuedo, as a noun, described as such:
noun: pseudo; plural noun: pseudos
adjective: pseudo
Am I picking on ‘head-fi’ by describing it thus?
No- not at all: it is easy to see that the website is filled with MORE than just users discussing ‘head-fi’ery... and that the members and guests/friends often have many and varied reasons for being apart of this place.
Sometimes it is simply research on a new part, sometimes it is ‘audio theory’ and often it is due to being a hobbyist and having ‘like minded’ people to discuss stuff that matters..
For the casuals, they may not see the social backbone, and for many of the regulars, they may have a hard time seeing their regular community due to ‘having met’ in a thread about ‘X’, but present research/enquiries mean they are hanging in threads to do with ‘Y’..
Now anyone passing through here, like a bus stop in some outback town far from source and destination, it can seem like ‘another world’. However briefly you may visit, or choose to stay for, will reveal layers to the member-base and what is truly on offer by going ‘up stream’ to see the witch(es) of audio-fi-ery...
Some swamp witches will tell you to buy headphones of a specific impedance, the sand witches might tell you to buy an amplifier of a certain design, and the air witches will argue, back and forth, about whether you want to go ‘balanced’, and their apprentices are shouting about MQA...
But hang on, you only came here cause the sales person in the electrical store that seemed to actually care about YOUR project, said they live and die by the advice found here-in?!
__________________________
DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!
__________________________
Why are you listening to others on YOUR journey?!
Are you blindly placing yourself at the feet of ALL random strangers, hoping that someone will stop and give you a moment from their day?
This is madness!
If you walked out of your electrical retailer and put up a ‘homeless’ sign and sat on the corner and begged; what would you be given?
Certainly it is ‘less than likely’ that professionals regarding a specific branch of research would come to your aid and start dropping little bits of knowledge...
No- you would be a magnet for societies lonely types and ‘do gooders’ (no negative tone intended), who may stop to aid, but are probably not likely to give you their professional best (it is THEIR WEEKEND AFTER ALL)..
Head-fi questions are the same, but with better reach. Most happy audiofoolz (of which I affectionately wish to be) are off using their kit or doing other things.
Like all things internet, unhappy types mostly linger and ‘have something to say’, and HEAD-Fi, like many safe bastions on the web, has a statistical skew-wing of the user base, where you will literally see metric tonnes of the member base ONLY OWN NEW/PRESENT ‘flavour of the moment kit’.
This might mean they have a great opinion on ‘all things presently in the market’, or they might have been doing this for years and simply have the cash behind them to dedicate to what must be their favourite past time or passion.
Not all head-fi newbies are new.
I, like many here, read the forums for many years before I finally signed up to post.
Sometimes the motivation to stymy ‘miss information’ or to attempt to present information that may be ‘missed by many’, is enough to draw out new users/ ‘first posts’.
Not all ‘post counts’ are worthy.
Most of the ‘worst noise’ for me, over the years, is by the people who like having ‘massive post counts’, and they respond to every comment with a ‘flavour of the minute’ fad response/ or ‘what many people (they assume) believe’; so as to get upvotes.
We cannot trust that ego is left at the door.
Of course it isn’t!
Some of these ‘toys’ are costly and a subset of our society buys ‘flavour of the minute’ expensive stuff to show wealth.
In my youth people wore gold necklaces around their necks. The ‘big boys’ at the recycling centre I worked all drove nice/super cars and wore their weight again in precious metals.
Their modern equivalents could simply drape some Beats by Dre, and be seen as ‘bad ass’. (Yes I know that ‘by Dre’ is so yesteryear!)
Some lightweight earbuds on ‘unobtanium’ grade cables can easily out value a car.
As a salesperson I used to check ‘shoes and watch’. Is that now ‘phone and buds’?
Needless to say, with the money that the personal audio industry now moves, many more people for many more reasons have reason to be ‘less casual’ with personal hi-fi.
So which head-fier is going to give me ‘right advice?’
Excuse me?
That is a CRAZY EXPECTATION.
First- it assumes that ANY ADVICE might be right for you..
The first thing I’d be hoping for is someone who has taken the time to educate themselves on my unique enquiry.
eg do I want to listen to rock and roll on the bus on the way to work?
do I want to play video games with an advantage stemming from the audio chain?
Rehearsing a piece of music for Fridays’ gig?
All questions take certain assumptions for granted...
The more info you have put out for others to consider, with your question/relating to your question; the more the forum will keep the answers ‘relevant to you’,or, ‘in check’.
There is something so wonderful watching (reading) random strangers arguing, on your behalf, to show who has ‘listened most attentively’ to YOUR NEEDs...
=>Qualifiers that we are ‘on the right track’ is being asked MORE questions?
eg how loud do you like your rock n roll (on the bus)?
what have you experienced so far with regards to gaming audio?
do you just need an ‘a-b repeat’ function to lick that guitar, erm, ‘lick’?
Now this isn’t rocket science and is the same on many an internet forum.
Why does ‘head-fi’ get its’ rep then?
Maybe because people are scared of audio -it is an emotional ‘science’ and not objective, only following rigid scientific truth; much of high fidelity audios’ ‘science’ is evolving, and in many regards we are in the ‘dark ages’.
Sir Henry Chakra Bose, the brilliant botanist/scientist dealt with a lot of refusal (by professional boards and governing bodies) to move forward in his respective fields, ‘back in the day’: until he evolved the measuring equipment (scientific tools) so that observations COULD be made and repeated. (finally scientific breakthroughs flourished)
Sir Bose fortunately was working with ‘very scientific’ principles that were ‘somewhat sound’ (hindsight), but audio and human perception is unscientific from the outset. The tools are inconsistent (individual ear/brain training and physical capability and the sound spectrum being so wide with such nuances to what makes ‘any given sound’ exciting).
_________________________________________________
What is this mish mash? Of course audio has science...
Erm, No.
No; it has some measurements that have been packaged with kit for decades now, sure.
Those ‘measurements’ are easily manipulated and often correlate with other measurements (seldom given) in order to have ANY WORTH. The goalposts for any given measurement can be moved, easily, and often have been.. generally ‘evolving’ with crashing money markets to ease the requirements to ‘hit said specifications’ so as to keep consumer interest and economy moving forward.
Do hard and fast numbers indicate the tonal qualities of a certain instrument that may be in the second row of a large band? (no, not a metric to compare) Played by a master musician who has spent decades developing their breath work, and who has polished certain surfaces of their tool to give a ‘certain sound’?
No they do not- their isn’t any ‘number’ or spec that indicates many of the facets that are required by some music genres or may interest ‘certain listeners’.
Not into classically trained musicians giving nuanced delivery (less than .1dB signal variance) or care for whether Ben is playing his guitar on his lap - the room acoustics carrying the intimacy of the venue..
Those differences, that any students of the art (music) will know represent decades of practise and mastery of the tool, will be detectable (to ears that are listening for them..), so long as the kit doesn’t mask the details or ‘screw up’. There is metric tonnes of ‘5 star kit’ that won’t reveal much of the musicality that some will seek..
Sure- SOME NUMBERS will tell you how loud you can expect for a specific headphone to sound on a given amplifier etc.. some numbers ARE very useful, or WERE very useful (once upon a time); as soon as manufacturers cotton on to what users are looking to buy, do you think they might be inclined to ‘chase those sales’?
Smoke and mirrors allows EASY tailoring of some spec sheet numbers to ‘look good’ but might not sound their best due to ‘sacrifices to hit ‘sales sheet’ specifications.
And sadly manufacturers DO tailor to make sales:
As an easy example, I will give FiiO-, who have found massive sales success when implementing THX amplifier modules. They are not their best amp circuits, and much ‘sound tuning’ gets thrown under the bus in order to be ‘flavour of the moment’ implementations. (The users in the threads so happy to argue for the ‘scientifically perfect’ THX module and why there is simply ‘nothing better’)(anyone who has walked a minute on headfi probably knows that these THX amps revolutionised ENTRY LEVEL headphone amps market. They can be great ‘budget’ amplifiers, that measure well, scientifically speaking. I wouldn’t buy a premium THX headphone amp, as that is an oxymoronic preposition at best,.. (Peer review would be filled with praise no doubt stating “best THX amp ever/eva!!”).
FiiO could continue to make parts like the M15 and its custom amplification design, or, implement what ‘yellow belt consumers’ are demanding by voting with their wallets...
That THX certification does sell units. (so too does MQA, previously it was ‘Hi Res’ logos etc..)
________________________________________________
Are you buying patents or are you buying brilliance?
I love a ‘toy’ part I recently bought that includes a few patents. (it includes MQA, and whilst that typically leads to ‘blacklisting’ in my circle-I persevered, mildly annoyed I paid the piper on that one...)
One of its’ features is a custom digital filter that the manufacturer includes.
There are a few manufacturers that I follow based on their parts evolving (for the better, not just ‘for the spec sheet’), and sometimes a custom implementation is all it takes to net better value for money.
We all want audio ‘bang for buck’, the people who spend large wads of money in this hobby, against the silly belief that they have ‘more money than sence’, probably want a return on investment too.. (they probably aren’t buying fashion parts to ‘show off’ wealth)
I wouldn’t discount the ‘truths’ experienced by others because it didn’t fit with some silly ideology that all audio science is understood, and some notion that audio science purely moves audio quality forward. (that is a stretch to anyone who understands marketing and profit)
My experience, doing the one thing that this hobby benefits greatly from (individualised testing/testing for MYSELF), has revealed many times that buying based on authority of the designers rather than the spec sheet, leads to better musical reproduction.
It is stupid the number of times that the spec sheets dictate I am buying a ‘downgrade’ yet everything about the playback shows otherwise.
Sometimes it takes a familiar room and speakers to reveal WHY a part matters to the end user. Even if they cannot put their finger on the specifics of WHY, the WHY continues to deliver...
I learned decades ago about the sound differences power filtration or a cable might make to a systems response. (I now accept these principles as being relevant ‘to me’, when looking at the minutia that makes up a complete build)
So my advice is UNLIKELY to match your interpretation of what audio chain playback is.
I have owned transports (digital front ends) worth more than ‘actual transport’ (cars), and amplifiers worth more than houses, or certainly a nice renovation (or three)..
I have played with cables worth more than the average price of whole stereo rigs, and I have played with setups equal or better than my own for more than four decades, during which time I have been intertwined with the audio industry. (sales and installation as well as other mixer desk/engineering roles)
The small things that bring me passion I will talk about casually as if they are bigger than Ben Hur. When I do so, I hope (believe) that I am talking in an appropriate thread, with the context that said ‘minutia’ is relevant to a very specific sub set of users...
(ie I wouldn’t upsell cables as being relevant to anyone who hasn’t bought their end-game amplifier and headphones etc(the money would easily net overt/perceivable differences if invested elsewhere)
I will give some idea of typical head-fi points of discussion and how they might easily be misinterpreted...
Event: I test three different headphone amplifiers and get three different (sound) experiences. All three parts are excellent kit, generally ‘five star’ rated for sound quality.
Bias: Based on point of observation and reference I will post ‘my findings’ likely in one of three threads, which might change the tone/article to factor;
a) budget ‘do everything’ part “holds’ itself well against...(list expensive kit here)”
b) old flagship bit of kit continues to deliver exceptional ‘class leading’ sound, holds up well against.. (insert ‘flavour of moment’ kit here, listing relevant patents with derogatory tone )
c) new expensive toy is ‘all that’ (here is further proof/qualify patents as contributing to ‘new sound’))
Of course I, like many, could wax lyrical for pages or paragraphs giving weight to ideas and quoting science pages (any observations that I agree with), that further my bias/confirm my observations etc..
If my ego was strong and my group of ‘pagans’ all had shared core beliefs, we probably could talk fiction as if it was fact, and generally all shake each others hands’ for the further evidence gathered...(observations that we agree with)..
Observation Bias is EVERYTHING!
Finding zealots who are looking for the same outcomes that we seek, using methods we agree with, are likely our ‘shortlist’ of info sources (to consider) on head-fi, or any ‘dedicated’ user forum.
This is where blind testing gains strong argument from me;
We are BIAS. (the counterpoint being we need to remove some of our ‘humanness’ from our ‘findings’)
To survive in this world we start stereotyping at a young age. We classify things in families and relegate all sorts of ‘half fictions’ and ‘truths’ to the ‘TEST THIS’ pile.
Audio is no different.
Except it doesn’t have obvious ‘easy markers’ to compare and contrast.
(Why did that reviewer give that DAC an 8/10 for sound quality?)
This is why we need to find reviewers whose beliefs are ‘in line’ with ours AND who have developed a language we understand that is consistent across their reviews.
If you do not listen to a specific type of music, my observations might have nothing in common with yours’ (we are literally doing ‘different things’).
This crazy idea that all amps are built equally, is great ‘theory’, but in practise, like everything ‘retail/consumer’, it is all about sacrifices, and which we are willing to make.
The specifications sheet might take plots at points that don’t matter (to audio enjoyment) but that look good when competing against product Xs’ spec sheet.
The quick parallel, for example -from the world of camera sensors: an X-Trans sensor (fuji) will have nicer ISO noise than a CMOS sensor of equivalent megapixel (and often higher).
Every manufacturer rates their ISO capability, but whether it is ‘usable’ is in the eye of the beholder.
You could twist my arm to shoot on a Sony Fullframe CMOS camera at an ISO higher than 400 (I’d go to 800 maybe), where as I’d shoot at ISO 6400 happily on the Fuji (so long as excellent Dynamic Range wasn’t required). Quite simply the ‘noise’ in the Fuji system (X-Trans) is more film like. Shooting black and white on an old Fuji body is ‘a thing’; and there is a reason for that....
The Spec sheets have no way of qualifying whether noise in one camera system is ‘organic’ or pleasing to the eye..
Amplifiers are not ‘all the same’. (some even have different methods to achieve their power which may alter the total ‘hi-fi’ capability of the part,.. and whilst many will talk about valves and ‘harmonics’ (as relating to each other), the idea that ‘some distortion is pleasant’ quickly removes the consideration from the ‘purists’ who worship the specification sheet above all else, and heck, ‘pre school’ taught them the relationship between numbers, and primary school level science teaches about how to compare graphs and numbers etc- it doesn’t make sense when doing consumer research twenty years after the ‘turn of a century’, that using ‘outdated’ technology could IMPROVE the sound one experiences. +actually valves are ‘just like ISO noise’, in that what they render is what we want to experience, but don’t let the numbers get in the way of a ‘good mistruth’ perpetrated by science-ing the situation).
++Less noise is less noise wink.gif, and ALL NOISE must be bad m’kay
If you like rock with phase shifting guitars screaming out across the audio space, quelling instantly ‘with rock energy’, the air space and stage being apart of YOUR INTERPRETATION of what ‘good audio’ is, then you might find that you do not like ‘well specc’d amps’ of a certain demographic.
Those three amps I have been enjoying is actually five, but three is enough to compare as they reveal enough ‘table of features’ to vary what we are ACTUALLY getting... (and why it might matter to one genre of music or ‘headphone type’). I had been convincing myself that the budget amp (included in a DAP) was holding its’ own against bigger, dedicated boxes.
From the point of view of comparing tracks, I could have signed off on the project ‘all present ‘good enough’, so as not to rob the music of anything’. I had clear ‘internal’ (subjective) unqualifiable stance that A was ‘slightly less’ than B, and C half the difference, again, improved over B. I had a ‘podium’ on which they all stood. They all got respective rewards. Bronze, Silver and Gold.
If I had the space to do a big write up, comparing them, then the final medals would have been Platinum-Silver-Bronze OR Platinum-Gold-Bronze- indicating more gap between some of the competitors.
Honestly I couldn’t see a reason to drop the lowly part from the lineup- it was holding up ‘well enough’ and technically did everything it was supposed to do.
I even fired up my $4k /‘big dollar’ headset (and cable) onto the baby amplifier, and was happy with the sound. (enough to do further A-B tests)
For two weeks now I could have walked away from the project and shared my findings forever more based on initial findings. Nothing new really experienced between them, nothing exacerbating the gap or giving me reason to reconsider my weighings for their final score.
Until today.
Playing a folder filled with the band ‘Muse’.
Muse are an interesting notion of what music is. One of those ‘hybrids’ if you will, fitting for the new millennium. Its like how Metallica were the ‘classically trained musicians’ that owned their genre; Muse have that going for them AND a voice that Radiohead would invite around for ‘tea and biscuits’. The music folder I was randomising through had live sessions and studio mastered recordings.
Fortunately the Diablo (amp) died. (battery power had run out)
Quickly, I put the 4.4mm (balanced) plug into the DAP. Ouch. (get it off, quick)
Swapping back to a digital feed, went to an older Sony PHA3 amplifier...
Hmmmm
This is during a week where I was weighing up loaning/lending off my last good class A amp. (three out on ‘loan’ presently)
I knew that the DAP fed out via analogue into a nice Class A (home) headamp (Burson), sounded brilliant. I knew that the Diablo had a niche DAC circuit (brilliant, actually), and was a good amplifier. I knew that the Sony PHA3 was an older Sabre design, yet that the amp aspect held well against the Diablo.
Over the last few weeks of testing I had come to the summary that all amps sounded ‘wonderful’, but I had serious doubts that the DAP could give enough juice (amp power) to meet all requirements of over ear headphones. (but would probably be fine for earbuds/IEMs due to their typical high sensitivity and easy power requirements to drive to musical volume levels)
I had noted that the class A desktop amp had ‘power to burn’ and that it easily gave microdynamics and macrodynamics ‘to die for’.
The Diablo (a portable ‘high quality’ amp) seems ‘not class A’ by comparison.
The PHA3 actually has the Diablo in some audio tests... but they are close enough to relegate them both to the same ‘tier’ of kit, and be done with the worry of comparing them.
But today, when feeding Muse, certainly live, it all just fell apart.
Where generally I’d factor a decent DAC into my playback chain, todays’ scenario revealed that getting the amp wrong leads to a huge case of ‘ho-hum’ (why bother)..
I’d take any amp that renders the music right, and roll with whatever DAC is paired with it..
The basslines needed to be visceral.
For anyone who has seen ‘Scott Pilgrim VS the World’ (great flick, please watch), there is a scene where a bass guitarist is slapping away on the strings and some computer generated effects are ‘drawn in the air’ simulating the cartoon/comic nature of Scott Pilgrim vs ‘the world’.. on a good amplfier, Muse had this VISCERAL bass line impact.
The DAP, that could easily be driven a lot louder (I was at 2/3rds on the volume dial in ‘low gain’ mode) simply didn’t have the driver control or raw power to make this music sound ‘natural’/real/way it is intended to be heard.
I agree /and believe that transport quality can impact resultant sound. There is no doubt that this FiiO DAP destroys most other transports for 0s and 1s quality. (most digital equipment is ‘compatible’, being totally happy doing a ‘non basic’ task (transferring zeros and ones) and doing so in any method that allows music to happen. Some kit is ‘capable’ and will actually render the zeros and ones that are ACTUALLY THERE..)
This FiiO DAP feels like it has a 2dB boost in the extreme low frequencies, and this is across all equipment it feeds to, whether via bluetooth/digital or analogue. I can understand how that is normal on the analogue output, but as a great transport does; it actually lifts MORE of the zeros and ones and transports them correctly. Vastly less error correction being engaged, equates to vastly better transients and notable improvements in basslines.
So, feeding the same DAP (source) into a run of ‘other amps’, the perfect music playback was much more visceral (gut feeling) on the better amplifiers.
I wouldn’t have classed them as better except by ‘biases’ prior to this morning.
Sure- I’d rate them by total power output capability, when listing them... (but wouldn’t let THAT sole figure define their sound quality).
Previous to this morning my bias lent on the Class A parts being inherently better.
I must admit that whilst I would never buy a THX (headphone) amp, the inclusion of two THX modules in my DAP of choice means that it was unavoidable in this instance.
Until this morning I actually started to believe there WAS something to all the recent THX interest.
The THX patent means a user is buying into a minimum/baseline level of quality. Annnnd - for the record; that quality is ‘baseline’ and ‘nothing special to write home about’.
It was clear that the THX spec probably wasn’t designed to show up the amplifier as being capable of delivering rock music (a pretty hard genre to get right), but certainly to compare the amplifier, playing test tones, against other entry level amps (playing test tones).
Would this DAP have sounded better without the THX patent - absolutely. But no one would have known about it... Where as ‘THX’ has users climbing over sand and rock to witness it in all its’ glory.
(THX amp circuit in the modern world is NOTHING on the THX specification that ruled consumer audio until the ‘tier 2’ rating system was developed. The THX amplifier module is what happens when you take a capable (budget) headphone amp design and produce it as a chip that can be ‘cheaply implemented’)(For entry level stuff it is a ‘good thing’, for tiers above entry level it is a case of ‘educate the consumer’, and just like other markets, eg ‘digital cameras’; the champions that the industry initially hold onto are the noose that strangles it. eg when we consumers were educated that ‘megapixel matters’, shortly devolved into a megapixel war)
If I wasn’t into rock genres and/or my headphones didn’t do ‘nice deep bass’ I would be oblivious to the change.
I wouldn’t (care to) pick the difference between an MP3’d Jack Johnson track and a 24bit hi res of the same song. (basic, studio, three piece; not a lot of complexity/dynamics)
A symphonic orchestra rendering the rock music of Pink Floyd? (hi res please)
I actually advocate for better mastering; and anything 16bit 44khz is good enough for me (HDCD even better). Better mastering comes through in the MP3 version and is enjoyable for everyone.
At some point though we have to recreate a sound that has been encoded to a digital file, and the MANY methods of transferring that back to an analogue wavelength is the lionshare of what equals arguments around ‘these parts’.
Some people like to quote the dynamic range of a microphone and say we ‘need nothing more’ from our playback equipment (same people likely argue that 24 frames per second is fine for video games).
Some engineers understand that electrical noise in ‘any given circuit’ means that we ain’t resolving 22bit+ of ‘dynamism’ or range..
Some stuff our head keeps in check, some stuff our heart does (or wallet)..
Often, the easiest way to figure out if a part is an upgrade is to check your feet:
are they tapping along to the music? (this playback chain has totally engaged you)
The science will get you so far. Like a recipe, it can be recreated and is reproducable for everybody. The chef in your audio kitchen may want to spice things up. Whether that is salt or chilli is personal, and so to is an individuals journey into personal audio.
That (camera) ‘ISO noise’ example; personal taste and experience are the largest parts of ‘getting audio right’’ if YOU LIKE IT; good enough.
Trust me when I say that many ‘well rated’ audio rigs will prove, in hindsight, as ‘unlistenable junk’. Usually this happens when people are free to experience a range of components without being tied to the price or ego of the part. (‘ego’ being we need to recoup our investment at some level).
I’d shoot all day on a Fuji, and find it a trustworthy tool that I can use reliably. The buttons are in places that my fingers fall, and I seldom have to fight with menus systems to do ‘basic’ photography. Even if the Sony had a technical advantage (beyond Dynamic Range), I’d forgo all the other advantages due to ‘real world usability’ of the Fuji camera netting many, many more usable photos. (taken quickly, when I’d still be ‘arguing’ with the Sony camera, trying to dial in settings).
There isn’t a spec sheet for ‘usability’; this camera example has ventured into the territory of ‘other benefits’ (‘value’?) proposition, but really is just skirting around the notion we all have different ideas of what is usable.
I will not buy headphones that are uncomfortable. (Buy comfortable headphones!)
If I won’t wear them, they don’t sound better than anything.. same with that camera; if I won’t shoot with it, then it ain’t good for photos (for me). If a review of kit doesn’t cover aspects that matter to you, then you need read more reviews.
-the parallel with the camera being-; Professional write ups might only have less than 10% of reviewers noting the ISO advantage, in ‘the real world’, as being vastly in Fujis’ favour. That would shortlist my reviewers for ‘future camera reviews’ to come from the pool of reviewers that ‘got it right’ (according to ‘my tastes’).
We should let the BIASs of others influence our decisions, so long as they are BIAS that will bring us joy (the ones we agree with)
We all have biases, and where mine start and stop are different to others’.
for example: going back to my ‘cable’ example (‘cables are for tweaking the final product ONLY’ (my belief)), I would argue that the first cable to get ‘right’ and perhaps invest money in even prior to getting Source/Preamp/Power amp/Speakers(‘headphones) finalised, MIGHT BE a ‘better than given free’ USB cable.
My observations and that of others I know first hand, in blind AB testing, have consistently picked (again: !BLINDLY-) better USB cables as opening up the air/stage space and doing the same sorts of things that up speccing’ equipment often brings.
..in fact once we start working at a certain minimum pricepoint, a USB cable change nets better results than ‘sidegrading’ a DAC etc.
The point of this page isn’t to purport USB cables. (they truly do not matter to more than 95% of even the head-fi’ers who frequent these pages)
The notion of reading and learning how to take ‘head-fi’ with “a grain of salt”, is to encourage more users to ‘get out alive’. - The Head-fi community is aware of how we come across; we’ve seen the reddit threads about ‘mad headfiers’. (telling us that tying our left foots’ shoelace first makes bluetooth sound more 3D)
Lets return the context to where it belongs: head-fi.
If you are new to this forum or ‘field of study’, then an open and shut mind is required.
Open- facilitates learning
Closed- saves wallet
What is good for others may have no relevance to you.... but how would anybody know?
A clear indication of what you want from a setup, AND some ideas of what you consider fair method to get there (either pricepoint or ‘paths to take’) will help.
If you haven’t heard a difference from one DAC to fifty others, then GOOD!; any DAC ‘may do’ for you...
If you have a huge collection of MP3s from the 90s and are considering adding streaming to the house, may change requirements of helpful advice to be given -if we are only talking about early 1940s music, likely mono, to be ‘streamed’ to a bluetooth speaker in the kitchen... (probably don’t need a power reconditioner for this task!!)
Critical ear training and learning through observation (eg taking ten years to build an audio ‘test track’ disc/playlist that reveals nuances that you have experienced differently across a range of stereo systems) are the lionshare of this hobby.
It isn’t scientific in the slightest due to the ‘human’ factor (and billions of differing opinions; which quite literally branch from “ MP3s being ‘better’ “ (?sounds louder on a cheap stereo?!)), to “BASS is where the quality is” (subwoofers rule m’okay).
My ideals are not yours.
You are right to like what you do (until someone tells you otherwise)!
Some casual readers have a backbone, and can state that DAC chips are the SPEC sheet/their phone is equal in transport quality to any DAP/computer jack is ‘loud enough’; don’t need an amp etc...
Some readers are not willing to reveal their ignorances and blindly stumble forward..
Many will not qualify their opinions, nor prioritise your unique need(s).
There is a whole range of readers and posters in between; which will you be?
What we know about bias is that ‘we all find what we are looking for’!
Okay; what are YOU LOOKING FOR...??
_______________________________________
Why you?/, what are YOU doing here?
(Why acknowledge someone for reading threads on a site?)
Your being here shows you are curious, and/or willing to learn (at least to investigate, and to consider ‘how green is the grass on the other side of the fence’). Life has taught me that those with minds that inquire are educating themselves and this is the best time to give a ‘learning mind’ information (that it seeks)..
And so that is what head-fi can offer: (knowledge, and in time ‘wisdom’)
By all means- come along for the ride; just be willing to ‘point fingers and laugh’.
This webpage is filled with fun ‘exhibits’ and we monkeys bring the popcorn worthy moments.
Stuff like telling a person who is thinking of replacing their phone with a dedicated music player, asking a very genuine question, will often be told ‘VERY MATTER OF FACTLY’, that they need to spend $X thousand dollars on un-obtanium filled cases that literally have mouth-holes that eat humble phones for snacks. (or breakfast) Anything less means the user will never develop the necessary ‘green thumbs’ to be worthy of sharing gained knowledge and wisdoms on their HiFi sojourn.
I do see some very ‘tongue in cheek’ comments, often to reps, where language barriers or ‘lack of tone’ make sarcasm and ‘jokes’ miss the mark.
Tone (of voice/;language) is a large part of the message we convey and mostly this is a positive web destination for speaking with intelligent types who want to help, either by saving others’ from making expensive misdirections, or by giving advice that may refine a purchasing decision (either to more simple or more dramatic expenditure).
Although sometimes we wind up sending neophytes off to buy 600ohm headphones (they are better than the 80ohm variants) and then they have to buy all sorts of additional accessories etc to ‘get into the hobby’ (and they may have just wanted to translate podcasts). (the advice given was wrong for them, but ‘sound’ for others’)
I feel we can all give/receive better advice by asking specific questions and ‘tailoring’ situations. In this regard we often have an advantage on head-fi, over retail, as no brand loyalty (commission) or advice given from viewpoint ‘from between goalposts’ that a retailer has to offer..
_________________________________
Why me/ what am I doing here?
My background scientifically speaking is mostly the mind sciences and technology (I.T.)
It was over twenty five years ago when I first studied tertiary psychology and I have given most of my Tertiary Majors to the further study of psychology and am aware of much to do with bias and conditioning.
When I seriously compare a couple of pieces of kit, renaming some inputs, and reassigning some inputs to generate an ‘unknown’ element is easy to do.
Due to having a lot of test discs and ‘scientific tones’ etc and having a few handy tools to measure some ‘basics’, I have no issue creating proper blind A/B tests, and even can run them on myself (where I find out which kit was which AFTER subjective listening tests).
Like every one else on head-fi I have been told off by ‘people more scientific than myself’ regarding my measurements; where muppets who assume everyone does everything wrong want to school me (including the links to mind science webpages about bias), and assume I cannot volume match two sources etc...
I write this to say that antagonistic unsocials like to sometimes pretend they run these pages, but they generally know not to climb too far out of the ‘audio science’ basement from which they lurk (some become silver tongued when on regular threads). The counterpoint is to turn up on ASR and talk emotionally. There -science is the rule- by which everything, including your sentences will be measured. There are other audio sites, some purporting to be the opposite of ASR.. Of course even the most ‘pagan’ amongst us love science. The tablet I write this on and the keyboard that I connect to it are all soundly scientific devices. The electricity that flows through them may be ‘an invisible force’, and brief testing with said electricity warms me that it should be well controlled. (I threw a valve amp up in the air more than a metre upon being ‘shocked’ one time. It was my birthday present, on my birthday,.. to say that the whole event played out in ‘slow motion’ is an understatement. The nineteen valves spinning through the air gracefully as I was thrown clear across the room; I don’t mess with science!)
Head-fi as a site has had many ‘phoenix from the flames’ moments.
(where science brawls with experience)
There has been a few times where passionate audiofoolz have ‘moved the forum’ to zones they feel they have more control over, maybe even limiting the subscriptions and encourage ‘one mindset’ for engaging.
Head-fi seems to still be the best stepping board for newbies, who will generally meet a more transitory user base (a lot of ‘flavour of the moment’ audiophiles here), but with many many years of combined wisdom and knowledge to draw upon (from left AND right brained types).
Arguing spec sheets/semantics can only get so far, and then ‘real world experience’ herds the masses in weird ways. I have seen professional journos on high end audio sites get slammed for pressing lists of ten or twenty ‘tricks for under $100’ than can help a hifi rig.
The comments more than 90% stacked against the article, listing how stupid they are (and quoting science), which rings odd to people like myself who found that 95%+ of the tricks (having been tested previously) work wonderfully.
___________________-= opinionated example=-________________
In brief, I understand that digital is zeros and ones. In THEORY a cable (or even a transport) shouldn’t matter.(?)
In the REALWORLD, that binary storage format (0s/1s) is transmitted by cable ‘as a wavelength’. (!)(how do you like them apples?)
a wavelength with all sorts of error corrections taking place... (to keep the numbers flowing super smoothly, being a requisite of DAC interpretation)
-It is one thing to argue that a ladder DAC has greater variations of the signal level, that delta sigma circuits can ‘guess’/‘estimate’ AVERAGES to the same effect. In this instance, I would argue that the misinformation is controlled in the direction it can effect. (The ladder DAC being more accurate at any given point, vs ‘the other circuits’ being ‘close enough’ most of the time). The variation between the parts should be minimal when looking for gross errors (with the exception of the difficulty of making a ladder DAC perform perfectly given the electrical requirements), with both methods giving an acceptable baseline.
-Whereas the variations in a digital feed (0s and 1s) that is ‘being corrected’ means that the transient can be one frame delayed (potentially partly missed) or held for several ‘in the wrong place’(held too long, then decay unnaturally)(and in a world of audio interpretation by humans- bass notes can run for twenty metres- that is ‘a lot of perfect reads’ to get right IN A ROW.. (error correctionable?-hahahah). This is why a decent USB cable that can actually meet a USB spec requirement (many will not) will give wider soundfield and better placement of the ‘rows’ of the orchestra, ‘remove congestion’ etc. And fix fast transients!! etc etc etc
=>but SSSsssshhhhh! (do not tell anyone)- USB cables mattering (to high end audio chains) IS perfectly scientific, just not to anyone living on a flat earth who think that USB cables pass ‘actual zeros and ones’; bless them.
_____________________________________-=normal posts raising a topic /‘can of worms’=-_____
I had been a very ‘long time reader’ when I finally subscribed just so I could educate some whining lil kid who liked to double amplify kit (highly compressing the sound wherever possible) and talk smack about some headphone manufacturers simply due to a sale that started after said kid bought some ‘expensive’ headphones.
I love information, even stuff that goes against my present understanding (chance to learn something), but mis-information I have a big issue with.
If life is like one big science experiment, then all we need is ‘accurate data’.
Life is ‘hard enough’ to have to filter out the mis information and waste time sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Of course it is the marketing department of the ‘modern world’ to obsfucate the details so that $$$ flows towards them...
So we get a four way pull; people who know what they are talking about / people who don’t AND science helping the discussion / science hurting the discussion.
In all quadrants we find great arguments, often ‘very persuasive’ and likely ‘well meaning’.
Recognising some ‘faces in the crowd’ (names in post heading) will give us the insight to know who to side with in ‘any given argument’.
Really though- the arguments aren’t so bad, and if done well enough, many peeps learn something along the way.
I’d rate my audio knowledge as ‘poor’ (vs my specialities) and I am happy to eat humble pie every chance I can get. Sadly, my four decades of audio tinkering (and the $$$ given to the hobby, trialing ‘nice kit’ for years/decades), puts me in the audio specialist category.
In the real world I would defer to any on site audio tech in a heartbeat, mostly due to specific training and ‘specialist’. In the PC space it is the exact opposite, where I have gone to length to argue with ‘world record holding’ overclockers regarding basic PC setup (mine being built to be inaudiable). Quite simply in these circumstances I know I will have put more time in and know my bits better than some ‘specialist’ who walks through the room and passes comment.
No matter how much you engage with someone on head-fi forum or via personal message (or the wider web); at best they ‘have casually walked through’ your room.
Trust in yourself and your local specialist with whom you likely have a working relationship. (they might even be a head-fi member/or likely ‘reader’)
A lot of pundits of head-fi are here for the journey- the journey being ‘good music’ (/‘sound’ for gamers), and an enjoyable time with this hobby.
I’d like to say I am here simply for ‘bragging rights’, but I don’t spend enough, annually, on this hobby to stay at the top of the game. I DO understand, with a very real sense of ‘a greater timeline’, the directions audio has been going in over the last fifty years.
That leads me to some strong opinions regarding ‘value for money’ and where to invest $$$.
My personal hobby extends, in the hifi world, to assisting others build Goliath slaying systems for ‘David’ (pauper) prices.
I love the middle tier ‘best bang for buck’ builds and often relegate anything cheaper to ‘junk-fi’ that the world cannot afford to produce and (re)produce.
Brands that service their parts beyond warranty periods and who offer firmwares with new features for ‘outdated tech’ are often the ones I champion most.
When those companies make ‘good pieces’ that are exceptional bang for buck I literally climb to the top of a nearby roof, with a megaphone, and tell everybody who cares to listen.
This is why I sometimes hang out on headfi- as the pages are filled with inquisitive minds always happy to learn where something is retailing at 70% off, or keen to use eldritch devices in esoteric ways..
Also superb for giving public feedback about present retail chain experiences AND manufacturers and their support ethos.
(ie is warranty worth anything from manufacturer X? how hard is it to contact and get feedback from company Y?)
___________
Where next?
Maybe need to start with the difference between an open back headphone vs a closed back style...
(//joking, but really; if you don’t know: probably start with this enquiry to try and gain some ‘headphone basics’.)
edit: (not really) a cut n paste made this ‘messy’; going to post n see how it formats; replies encouraged by Headfi ‘Oldtimers’ who read this (newbies take note: those posters VIEWING this thread means they are keeping abreast of Newbie help concerns). Middlers who have had some whack advice/‘over the top‘ recommendations (that reaffirm how headfiers ‘go big or go home‘), or any newbies that want to raise questions and wonder where answers might be. (the idea being that a thread is owned by the people who ACTIVELY POST in it. Oldtimers and those familiar with search commands could probably give great links to those with ‘new enquiries’.
A community is as strong as ‘the weakest link’. Please treat others the way we would wish to be treated.
Greets &or “good morrow”, where-ever and when-ever this may be, for you.
Thankyou for reading random threads, on a site pseudo dedicated to discussing audio.
‘Psuedo’?
A quick google has Psuedo, as a noun, described as such:
noun: pseudo; plural noun: pseudos
- a pretentious or insincere person.
adjective: pseudo
- not genuine; spurious or sham.
Am I picking on ‘head-fi’ by describing it thus?
No- not at all: it is easy to see that the website is filled with MORE than just users discussing ‘head-fi’ery... and that the members and guests/friends often have many and varied reasons for being apart of this place.
Sometimes it is simply research on a new part, sometimes it is ‘audio theory’ and often it is due to being a hobbyist and having ‘like minded’ people to discuss stuff that matters..
For the casuals, they may not see the social backbone, and for many of the regulars, they may have a hard time seeing their regular community due to ‘having met’ in a thread about ‘X’, but present research/enquiries mean they are hanging in threads to do with ‘Y’..
Now anyone passing through here, like a bus stop in some outback town far from source and destination, it can seem like ‘another world’. However briefly you may visit, or choose to stay for, will reveal layers to the member-base and what is truly on offer by going ‘up stream’ to see the witch(es) of audio-fi-ery...
Some swamp witches will tell you to buy headphones of a specific impedance, the sand witches might tell you to buy an amplifier of a certain design, and the air witches will argue, back and forth, about whether you want to go ‘balanced’, and their apprentices are shouting about MQA...
But hang on, you only came here cause the sales person in the electrical store that seemed to actually care about YOUR project, said they live and die by the advice found here-in?!
__________________________
DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!
__________________________
Why are you listening to others on YOUR journey?!
Are you blindly placing yourself at the feet of ALL random strangers, hoping that someone will stop and give you a moment from their day?
This is madness!
If you walked out of your electrical retailer and put up a ‘homeless’ sign and sat on the corner and begged; what would you be given?
Certainly it is ‘less than likely’ that professionals regarding a specific branch of research would come to your aid and start dropping little bits of knowledge...
No- you would be a magnet for societies lonely types and ‘do gooders’ (no negative tone intended), who may stop to aid, but are probably not likely to give you their professional best (it is THEIR WEEKEND AFTER ALL)..
Head-fi questions are the same, but with better reach. Most happy audiofoolz (of which I affectionately wish to be) are off using their kit or doing other things.
Like all things internet, unhappy types mostly linger and ‘have something to say’, and HEAD-Fi, like many safe bastions on the web, has a statistical skew-wing of the user base, where you will literally see metric tonnes of the member base ONLY OWN NEW/PRESENT ‘flavour of the moment kit’.
This might mean they have a great opinion on ‘all things presently in the market’, or they might have been doing this for years and simply have the cash behind them to dedicate to what must be their favourite past time or passion.
Not all head-fi newbies are new.
I, like many here, read the forums for many years before I finally signed up to post.
Sometimes the motivation to stymy ‘miss information’ or to attempt to present information that may be ‘missed by many’, is enough to draw out new users/ ‘first posts’.
Not all ‘post counts’ are worthy.
Most of the ‘worst noise’ for me, over the years, is by the people who like having ‘massive post counts’, and they respond to every comment with a ‘flavour of the minute’ fad response/ or ‘what many people (they assume) believe’; so as to get upvotes.
We cannot trust that ego is left at the door.
Of course it isn’t!
Some of these ‘toys’ are costly and a subset of our society buys ‘flavour of the minute’ expensive stuff to show wealth.
In my youth people wore gold necklaces around their necks. The ‘big boys’ at the recycling centre I worked all drove nice/super cars and wore their weight again in precious metals.
Their modern equivalents could simply drape some Beats by Dre, and be seen as ‘bad ass’. (Yes I know that ‘by Dre’ is so yesteryear!)
Some lightweight earbuds on ‘unobtanium’ grade cables can easily out value a car.
As a salesperson I used to check ‘shoes and watch’. Is that now ‘phone and buds’?
Needless to say, with the money that the personal audio industry now moves, many more people for many more reasons have reason to be ‘less casual’ with personal hi-fi.
So which head-fier is going to give me ‘right advice?’
Excuse me?
That is a CRAZY EXPECTATION.
First- it assumes that ANY ADVICE might be right for you..
The first thing I’d be hoping for is someone who has taken the time to educate themselves on my unique enquiry.
eg do I want to listen to rock and roll on the bus on the way to work?
do I want to play video games with an advantage stemming from the audio chain?
Rehearsing a piece of music for Fridays’ gig?
All questions take certain assumptions for granted...
The more info you have put out for others to consider, with your question/relating to your question; the more the forum will keep the answers ‘relevant to you’,or, ‘in check’.
There is something so wonderful watching (reading) random strangers arguing, on your behalf, to show who has ‘listened most attentively’ to YOUR NEEDs...
=>Qualifiers that we are ‘on the right track’ is being asked MORE questions?
eg how loud do you like your rock n roll (on the bus)?
what have you experienced so far with regards to gaming audio?
do you just need an ‘a-b repeat’ function to lick that guitar, erm, ‘lick’?
Now this isn’t rocket science and is the same on many an internet forum.
Why does ‘head-fi’ get its’ rep then?
Maybe because people are scared of audio -it is an emotional ‘science’ and not objective, only following rigid scientific truth; much of high fidelity audios’ ‘science’ is evolving, and in many regards we are in the ‘dark ages’.
Sir Henry Chakra Bose, the brilliant botanist/scientist dealt with a lot of refusal (by professional boards and governing bodies) to move forward in his respective fields, ‘back in the day’: until he evolved the measuring equipment (scientific tools) so that observations COULD be made and repeated. (finally scientific breakthroughs flourished)
Sir Bose fortunately was working with ‘very scientific’ principles that were ‘somewhat sound’ (hindsight), but audio and human perception is unscientific from the outset. The tools are inconsistent (individual ear/brain training and physical capability and the sound spectrum being so wide with such nuances to what makes ‘any given sound’ exciting).
_________________________________________________
What is this mish mash? Of course audio has science...
Erm, No.
No; it has some measurements that have been packaged with kit for decades now, sure.
Those ‘measurements’ are easily manipulated and often correlate with other measurements (seldom given) in order to have ANY WORTH. The goalposts for any given measurement can be moved, easily, and often have been.. generally ‘evolving’ with crashing money markets to ease the requirements to ‘hit said specifications’ so as to keep consumer interest and economy moving forward.
Do hard and fast numbers indicate the tonal qualities of a certain instrument that may be in the second row of a large band? (no, not a metric to compare) Played by a master musician who has spent decades developing their breath work, and who has polished certain surfaces of their tool to give a ‘certain sound’?
No they do not- their isn’t any ‘number’ or spec that indicates many of the facets that are required by some music genres or may interest ‘certain listeners’.
Not into classically trained musicians giving nuanced delivery (less than .1dB signal variance) or care for whether Ben is playing his guitar on his lap - the room acoustics carrying the intimacy of the venue..
Those differences, that any students of the art (music) will know represent decades of practise and mastery of the tool, will be detectable (to ears that are listening for them..), so long as the kit doesn’t mask the details or ‘screw up’. There is metric tonnes of ‘5 star kit’ that won’t reveal much of the musicality that some will seek..
Sure- SOME NUMBERS will tell you how loud you can expect for a specific headphone to sound on a given amplifier etc.. some numbers ARE very useful, or WERE very useful (once upon a time); as soon as manufacturers cotton on to what users are looking to buy, do you think they might be inclined to ‘chase those sales’?
Smoke and mirrors allows EASY tailoring of some spec sheet numbers to ‘look good’ but might not sound their best due to ‘sacrifices to hit ‘sales sheet’ specifications.
And sadly manufacturers DO tailor to make sales:
As an easy example, I will give FiiO-, who have found massive sales success when implementing THX amplifier modules. They are not their best amp circuits, and much ‘sound tuning’ gets thrown under the bus in order to be ‘flavour of the moment’ implementations. (The users in the threads so happy to argue for the ‘scientifically perfect’ THX module and why there is simply ‘nothing better’)(anyone who has walked a minute on headfi probably knows that these THX amps revolutionised ENTRY LEVEL headphone amps market. They can be great ‘budget’ amplifiers, that measure well, scientifically speaking. I wouldn’t buy a premium THX headphone amp, as that is an oxymoronic preposition at best,.. (Peer review would be filled with praise no doubt stating “best THX amp ever/eva!!”).
FiiO could continue to make parts like the M15 and its custom amplification design, or, implement what ‘yellow belt consumers’ are demanding by voting with their wallets...
That THX certification does sell units. (so too does MQA, previously it was ‘Hi Res’ logos etc..)
________________________________________________
Are you buying patents or are you buying brilliance?
I love a ‘toy’ part I recently bought that includes a few patents. (it includes MQA, and whilst that typically leads to ‘blacklisting’ in my circle-I persevered, mildly annoyed I paid the piper on that one...)
One of its’ features is a custom digital filter that the manufacturer includes.
There are a few manufacturers that I follow based on their parts evolving (for the better, not just ‘for the spec sheet’), and sometimes a custom implementation is all it takes to net better value for money.
We all want audio ‘bang for buck’, the people who spend large wads of money in this hobby, against the silly belief that they have ‘more money than sence’, probably want a return on investment too.. (they probably aren’t buying fashion parts to ‘show off’ wealth)
I wouldn’t discount the ‘truths’ experienced by others because it didn’t fit with some silly ideology that all audio science is understood, and some notion that audio science purely moves audio quality forward. (that is a stretch to anyone who understands marketing and profit)
My experience, doing the one thing that this hobby benefits greatly from (individualised testing/testing for MYSELF), has revealed many times that buying based on authority of the designers rather than the spec sheet, leads to better musical reproduction.
It is stupid the number of times that the spec sheets dictate I am buying a ‘downgrade’ yet everything about the playback shows otherwise.
Sometimes it takes a familiar room and speakers to reveal WHY a part matters to the end user. Even if they cannot put their finger on the specifics of WHY, the WHY continues to deliver...
I learned decades ago about the sound differences power filtration or a cable might make to a systems response. (I now accept these principles as being relevant ‘to me’, when looking at the minutia that makes up a complete build)
So my advice is UNLIKELY to match your interpretation of what audio chain playback is.
I have owned transports (digital front ends) worth more than ‘actual transport’ (cars), and amplifiers worth more than houses, or certainly a nice renovation (or three)..
I have played with cables worth more than the average price of whole stereo rigs, and I have played with setups equal or better than my own for more than four decades, during which time I have been intertwined with the audio industry. (sales and installation as well as other mixer desk/engineering roles)
The small things that bring me passion I will talk about casually as if they are bigger than Ben Hur. When I do so, I hope (believe) that I am talking in an appropriate thread, with the context that said ‘minutia’ is relevant to a very specific sub set of users...
(ie I wouldn’t upsell cables as being relevant to anyone who hasn’t bought their end-game amplifier and headphones etc(the money would easily net overt/perceivable differences if invested elsewhere)
I will give some idea of typical head-fi points of discussion and how they might easily be misinterpreted...
Event: I test three different headphone amplifiers and get three different (sound) experiences. All three parts are excellent kit, generally ‘five star’ rated for sound quality.
Bias: Based on point of observation and reference I will post ‘my findings’ likely in one of three threads, which might change the tone/article to factor;
a) budget ‘do everything’ part “holds’ itself well against...(list expensive kit here)”
b) old flagship bit of kit continues to deliver exceptional ‘class leading’ sound, holds up well against.. (insert ‘flavour of moment’ kit here, listing relevant patents with derogatory tone )
c) new expensive toy is ‘all that’ (here is further proof/qualify patents as contributing to ‘new sound’))
Of course I, like many, could wax lyrical for pages or paragraphs giving weight to ideas and quoting science pages (any observations that I agree with), that further my bias/confirm my observations etc..
If my ego was strong and my group of ‘pagans’ all had shared core beliefs, we probably could talk fiction as if it was fact, and generally all shake each others hands’ for the further evidence gathered...(observations that we agree with)..
Observation Bias is EVERYTHING!
Finding zealots who are looking for the same outcomes that we seek, using methods we agree with, are likely our ‘shortlist’ of info sources (to consider) on head-fi, or any ‘dedicated’ user forum.
This is where blind testing gains strong argument from me;
We are BIAS. (the counterpoint being we need to remove some of our ‘humanness’ from our ‘findings’)
To survive in this world we start stereotyping at a young age. We classify things in families and relegate all sorts of ‘half fictions’ and ‘truths’ to the ‘TEST THIS’ pile.
Audio is no different.
Except it doesn’t have obvious ‘easy markers’ to compare and contrast.
(Why did that reviewer give that DAC an 8/10 for sound quality?)
This is why we need to find reviewers whose beliefs are ‘in line’ with ours AND who have developed a language we understand that is consistent across their reviews.
If you do not listen to a specific type of music, my observations might have nothing in common with yours’ (we are literally doing ‘different things’).
This crazy idea that all amps are built equally, is great ‘theory’, but in practise, like everything ‘retail/consumer’, it is all about sacrifices, and which we are willing to make.
The specifications sheet might take plots at points that don’t matter (to audio enjoyment) but that look good when competing against product Xs’ spec sheet.
The quick parallel, for example -from the world of camera sensors: an X-Trans sensor (fuji) will have nicer ISO noise than a CMOS sensor of equivalent megapixel (and often higher).
Every manufacturer rates their ISO capability, but whether it is ‘usable’ is in the eye of the beholder.
You could twist my arm to shoot on a Sony Fullframe CMOS camera at an ISO higher than 400 (I’d go to 800 maybe), where as I’d shoot at ISO 6400 happily on the Fuji (so long as excellent Dynamic Range wasn’t required). Quite simply the ‘noise’ in the Fuji system (X-Trans) is more film like. Shooting black and white on an old Fuji body is ‘a thing’; and there is a reason for that....
The Spec sheets have no way of qualifying whether noise in one camera system is ‘organic’ or pleasing to the eye..
Amplifiers are not ‘all the same’. (some even have different methods to achieve their power which may alter the total ‘hi-fi’ capability of the part,.. and whilst many will talk about valves and ‘harmonics’ (as relating to each other), the idea that ‘some distortion is pleasant’ quickly removes the consideration from the ‘purists’ who worship the specification sheet above all else, and heck, ‘pre school’ taught them the relationship between numbers, and primary school level science teaches about how to compare graphs and numbers etc- it doesn’t make sense when doing consumer research twenty years after the ‘turn of a century’, that using ‘outdated’ technology could IMPROVE the sound one experiences. +actually valves are ‘just like ISO noise’, in that what they render is what we want to experience, but don’t let the numbers get in the way of a ‘good mistruth’ perpetrated by science-ing the situation).
++Less noise is less noise wink.gif, and ALL NOISE must be bad m’kay
If you like rock with phase shifting guitars screaming out across the audio space, quelling instantly ‘with rock energy’, the air space and stage being apart of YOUR INTERPRETATION of what ‘good audio’ is, then you might find that you do not like ‘well specc’d amps’ of a certain demographic.
Those three amps I have been enjoying is actually five, but three is enough to compare as they reveal enough ‘table of features’ to vary what we are ACTUALLY getting... (and why it might matter to one genre of music or ‘headphone type’). I had been convincing myself that the budget amp (included in a DAP) was holding its’ own against bigger, dedicated boxes.
From the point of view of comparing tracks, I could have signed off on the project ‘all present ‘good enough’, so as not to rob the music of anything’. I had clear ‘internal’ (subjective) unqualifiable stance that A was ‘slightly less’ than B, and C half the difference, again, improved over B. I had a ‘podium’ on which they all stood. They all got respective rewards. Bronze, Silver and Gold.
If I had the space to do a big write up, comparing them, then the final medals would have been Platinum-Silver-Bronze OR Platinum-Gold-Bronze- indicating more gap between some of the competitors.
Honestly I couldn’t see a reason to drop the lowly part from the lineup- it was holding up ‘well enough’ and technically did everything it was supposed to do.
I even fired up my $4k /‘big dollar’ headset (and cable) onto the baby amplifier, and was happy with the sound. (enough to do further A-B tests)
For two weeks now I could have walked away from the project and shared my findings forever more based on initial findings. Nothing new really experienced between them, nothing exacerbating the gap or giving me reason to reconsider my weighings for their final score.
Until today.
Playing a folder filled with the band ‘Muse’.
Muse are an interesting notion of what music is. One of those ‘hybrids’ if you will, fitting for the new millennium. Its like how Metallica were the ‘classically trained musicians’ that owned their genre; Muse have that going for them AND a voice that Radiohead would invite around for ‘tea and biscuits’. The music folder I was randomising through had live sessions and studio mastered recordings.
Fortunately the Diablo (amp) died. (battery power had run out)
Quickly, I put the 4.4mm (balanced) plug into the DAP. Ouch. (get it off, quick)
Swapping back to a digital feed, went to an older Sony PHA3 amplifier...
Hmmmm
This is during a week where I was weighing up loaning/lending off my last good class A amp. (three out on ‘loan’ presently)
I knew that the DAP fed out via analogue into a nice Class A (home) headamp (Burson), sounded brilliant. I knew that the Diablo had a niche DAC circuit (brilliant, actually), and was a good amplifier. I knew that the Sony PHA3 was an older Sabre design, yet that the amp aspect held well against the Diablo.
| DAC | Amp | |
| FiiO DAP | **** | ** |
| iFi DAC/AMP | ***** | *** |
| Sony DAC/AMP | ** | **** |
| Burson DAC/AMP | *** | ***** |
Over the last few weeks of testing I had come to the summary that all amps sounded ‘wonderful’, but I had serious doubts that the DAP could give enough juice (amp power) to meet all requirements of over ear headphones. (but would probably be fine for earbuds/IEMs due to their typical high sensitivity and easy power requirements to drive to musical volume levels)
I had noted that the class A desktop amp had ‘power to burn’ and that it easily gave microdynamics and macrodynamics ‘to die for’.
The Diablo (a portable ‘high quality’ amp) seems ‘not class A’ by comparison.
The PHA3 actually has the Diablo in some audio tests... but they are close enough to relegate them both to the same ‘tier’ of kit, and be done with the worry of comparing them.
But today, when feeding Muse, certainly live, it all just fell apart.
Where generally I’d factor a decent DAC into my playback chain, todays’ scenario revealed that getting the amp wrong leads to a huge case of ‘ho-hum’ (why bother)..
I’d take any amp that renders the music right, and roll with whatever DAC is paired with it..
The basslines needed to be visceral.
For anyone who has seen ‘Scott Pilgrim VS the World’ (great flick, please watch), there is a scene where a bass guitarist is slapping away on the strings and some computer generated effects are ‘drawn in the air’ simulating the cartoon/comic nature of Scott Pilgrim vs ‘the world’.. on a good amplfier, Muse had this VISCERAL bass line impact.
The DAP, that could easily be driven a lot louder (I was at 2/3rds on the volume dial in ‘low gain’ mode) simply didn’t have the driver control or raw power to make this music sound ‘natural’/real/way it is intended to be heard.
I agree /and believe that transport quality can impact resultant sound. There is no doubt that this FiiO DAP destroys most other transports for 0s and 1s quality. (most digital equipment is ‘compatible’, being totally happy doing a ‘non basic’ task (transferring zeros and ones) and doing so in any method that allows music to happen. Some kit is ‘capable’ and will actually render the zeros and ones that are ACTUALLY THERE..)
This FiiO DAP feels like it has a 2dB boost in the extreme low frequencies, and this is across all equipment it feeds to, whether via bluetooth/digital or analogue. I can understand how that is normal on the analogue output, but as a great transport does; it actually lifts MORE of the zeros and ones and transports them correctly. Vastly less error correction being engaged, equates to vastly better transients and notable improvements in basslines.
So, feeding the same DAP (source) into a run of ‘other amps’, the perfect music playback was much more visceral (gut feeling) on the better amplifiers.
I wouldn’t have classed them as better except by ‘biases’ prior to this morning.
Sure- I’d rate them by total power output capability, when listing them... (but wouldn’t let THAT sole figure define their sound quality).
Previous to this morning my bias lent on the Class A parts being inherently better.
I must admit that whilst I would never buy a THX (headphone) amp, the inclusion of two THX modules in my DAP of choice means that it was unavoidable in this instance.
Until this morning I actually started to believe there WAS something to all the recent THX interest.
The THX patent means a user is buying into a minimum/baseline level of quality. Annnnd - for the record; that quality is ‘baseline’ and ‘nothing special to write home about’.
It was clear that the THX spec probably wasn’t designed to show up the amplifier as being capable of delivering rock music (a pretty hard genre to get right), but certainly to compare the amplifier, playing test tones, against other entry level amps (playing test tones).
Would this DAP have sounded better without the THX patent - absolutely. But no one would have known about it... Where as ‘THX’ has users climbing over sand and rock to witness it in all its’ glory.
(THX amp circuit in the modern world is NOTHING on the THX specification that ruled consumer audio until the ‘tier 2’ rating system was developed. The THX amplifier module is what happens when you take a capable (budget) headphone amp design and produce it as a chip that can be ‘cheaply implemented’)(For entry level stuff it is a ‘good thing’, for tiers above entry level it is a case of ‘educate the consumer’, and just like other markets, eg ‘digital cameras’; the champions that the industry initially hold onto are the noose that strangles it. eg when we consumers were educated that ‘megapixel matters’, shortly devolved into a megapixel war)
If I wasn’t into rock genres and/or my headphones didn’t do ‘nice deep bass’ I would be oblivious to the change.
I wouldn’t (care to) pick the difference between an MP3’d Jack Johnson track and a 24bit hi res of the same song. (basic, studio, three piece; not a lot of complexity/dynamics)
A symphonic orchestra rendering the rock music of Pink Floyd? (hi res please)
I actually advocate for better mastering; and anything 16bit 44khz is good enough for me (HDCD even better). Better mastering comes through in the MP3 version and is enjoyable for everyone.
At some point though we have to recreate a sound that has been encoded to a digital file, and the MANY methods of transferring that back to an analogue wavelength is the lionshare of what equals arguments around ‘these parts’.
Some people like to quote the dynamic range of a microphone and say we ‘need nothing more’ from our playback equipment (same people likely argue that 24 frames per second is fine for video games).
Some engineers understand that electrical noise in ‘any given circuit’ means that we ain’t resolving 22bit+ of ‘dynamism’ or range..
Some stuff our head keeps in check, some stuff our heart does (or wallet)..
Often, the easiest way to figure out if a part is an upgrade is to check your feet:
are they tapping along to the music? (this playback chain has totally engaged you)
The science will get you so far. Like a recipe, it can be recreated and is reproducable for everybody. The chef in your audio kitchen may want to spice things up. Whether that is salt or chilli is personal, and so to is an individuals journey into personal audio.
That (camera) ‘ISO noise’ example; personal taste and experience are the largest parts of ‘getting audio right’’ if YOU LIKE IT; good enough.
Trust me when I say that many ‘well rated’ audio rigs will prove, in hindsight, as ‘unlistenable junk’. Usually this happens when people are free to experience a range of components without being tied to the price or ego of the part. (‘ego’ being we need to recoup our investment at some level).
I’d shoot all day on a Fuji, and find it a trustworthy tool that I can use reliably. The buttons are in places that my fingers fall, and I seldom have to fight with menus systems to do ‘basic’ photography. Even if the Sony had a technical advantage (beyond Dynamic Range), I’d forgo all the other advantages due to ‘real world usability’ of the Fuji camera netting many, many more usable photos. (taken quickly, when I’d still be ‘arguing’ with the Sony camera, trying to dial in settings).
There isn’t a spec sheet for ‘usability’; this camera example has ventured into the territory of ‘other benefits’ (‘value’?) proposition, but really is just skirting around the notion we all have different ideas of what is usable.
I will not buy headphones that are uncomfortable. (Buy comfortable headphones!)
If I won’t wear them, they don’t sound better than anything.. same with that camera; if I won’t shoot with it, then it ain’t good for photos (for me). If a review of kit doesn’t cover aspects that matter to you, then you need read more reviews.
-the parallel with the camera being-; Professional write ups might only have less than 10% of reviewers noting the ISO advantage, in ‘the real world’, as being vastly in Fujis’ favour. That would shortlist my reviewers for ‘future camera reviews’ to come from the pool of reviewers that ‘got it right’ (according to ‘my tastes’).
We should let the BIASs of others influence our decisions, so long as they are BIAS that will bring us joy (the ones we agree with)
We all have biases, and where mine start and stop are different to others’.
for example: going back to my ‘cable’ example (‘cables are for tweaking the final product ONLY’ (my belief)), I would argue that the first cable to get ‘right’ and perhaps invest money in even prior to getting Source/Preamp/Power amp/Speakers(‘headphones) finalised, MIGHT BE a ‘better than given free’ USB cable.
My observations and that of others I know first hand, in blind AB testing, have consistently picked (again: !BLINDLY-) better USB cables as opening up the air/stage space and doing the same sorts of things that up speccing’ equipment often brings.
..in fact once we start working at a certain minimum pricepoint, a USB cable change nets better results than ‘sidegrading’ a DAC etc.
- now whether any given reader has a transport ‘good enough’ to bother is ‘the million dollar question’, but this is where good head-fi discussion should factor YOUR usage.
- (in this instance start with comparing the digital via USB vs the digital fed via COAX/Fibre optic; I generally expect $50 coax = $150 toslink = $400 USB; although this can be hard to test as many entry level DACs favour their USB input or have different clocks/handling of bluetooth and USB)(the fact that I have price point comparison shows my OBSERVED BIAS)
The point of this page isn’t to purport USB cables. (they truly do not matter to more than 95% of even the head-fi’ers who frequent these pages)
The notion of reading and learning how to take ‘head-fi’ with “a grain of salt”, is to encourage more users to ‘get out alive’. - The Head-fi community is aware of how we come across; we’ve seen the reddit threads about ‘mad headfiers’. (telling us that tying our left foots’ shoelace first makes bluetooth sound more 3D)
Lets return the context to where it belongs: head-fi.
If you are new to this forum or ‘field of study’, then an open and shut mind is required.
Open- facilitates learning
Closed- saves wallet
What is good for others may have no relevance to you.... but how would anybody know?
A clear indication of what you want from a setup, AND some ideas of what you consider fair method to get there (either pricepoint or ‘paths to take’) will help.
If you haven’t heard a difference from one DAC to fifty others, then GOOD!; any DAC ‘may do’ for you...
If you have a huge collection of MP3s from the 90s and are considering adding streaming to the house, may change requirements of helpful advice to be given -if we are only talking about early 1940s music, likely mono, to be ‘streamed’ to a bluetooth speaker in the kitchen... (probably don’t need a power reconditioner for this task!!)
Critical ear training and learning through observation (eg taking ten years to build an audio ‘test track’ disc/playlist that reveals nuances that you have experienced differently across a range of stereo systems) are the lionshare of this hobby.
It isn’t scientific in the slightest due to the ‘human’ factor (and billions of differing opinions; which quite literally branch from “ MP3s being ‘better’ “ (?sounds louder on a cheap stereo?!)), to “BASS is where the quality is” (subwoofers rule m’okay).
My ideals are not yours.
You are right to like what you do (until someone tells you otherwise)!
Some casual readers have a backbone, and can state that DAC chips are the SPEC sheet/their phone is equal in transport quality to any DAP/computer jack is ‘loud enough’; don’t need an amp etc...
Some readers are not willing to reveal their ignorances and blindly stumble forward..
Many will not qualify their opinions, nor prioritise your unique need(s).
There is a whole range of readers and posters in between; which will you be?
What we know about bias is that ‘we all find what we are looking for’!
Okay; what are YOU LOOKING FOR...??
_______________________________________
Why you?/, what are YOU doing here?
(Why acknowledge someone for reading threads on a site?)
Your being here shows you are curious, and/or willing to learn (at least to investigate, and to consider ‘how green is the grass on the other side of the fence’). Life has taught me that those with minds that inquire are educating themselves and this is the best time to give a ‘learning mind’ information (that it seeks)..
And so that is what head-fi can offer: (knowledge, and in time ‘wisdom’)
By all means- come along for the ride; just be willing to ‘point fingers and laugh’.
This webpage is filled with fun ‘exhibits’ and we monkeys bring the popcorn worthy moments.
Stuff like telling a person who is thinking of replacing their phone with a dedicated music player, asking a very genuine question, will often be told ‘VERY MATTER OF FACTLY’, that they need to spend $X thousand dollars on un-obtanium filled cases that literally have mouth-holes that eat humble phones for snacks. (or breakfast) Anything less means the user will never develop the necessary ‘green thumbs’ to be worthy of sharing gained knowledge and wisdoms on their HiFi sojourn.
I do see some very ‘tongue in cheek’ comments, often to reps, where language barriers or ‘lack of tone’ make sarcasm and ‘jokes’ miss the mark.
Tone (of voice/;language) is a large part of the message we convey and mostly this is a positive web destination for speaking with intelligent types who want to help, either by saving others’ from making expensive misdirections, or by giving advice that may refine a purchasing decision (either to more simple or more dramatic expenditure).
Although sometimes we wind up sending neophytes off to buy 600ohm headphones (they are better than the 80ohm variants) and then they have to buy all sorts of additional accessories etc to ‘get into the hobby’ (and they may have just wanted to translate podcasts). (the advice given was wrong for them, but ‘sound’ for others’)
I feel we can all give/receive better advice by asking specific questions and ‘tailoring’ situations. In this regard we often have an advantage on head-fi, over retail, as no brand loyalty (commission) or advice given from viewpoint ‘from between goalposts’ that a retailer has to offer..
_________________________________
Why me/ what am I doing here?
My background scientifically speaking is mostly the mind sciences and technology (I.T.)
It was over twenty five years ago when I first studied tertiary psychology and I have given most of my Tertiary Majors to the further study of psychology and am aware of much to do with bias and conditioning.
When I seriously compare a couple of pieces of kit, renaming some inputs, and reassigning some inputs to generate an ‘unknown’ element is easy to do.
Due to having a lot of test discs and ‘scientific tones’ etc and having a few handy tools to measure some ‘basics’, I have no issue creating proper blind A/B tests, and even can run them on myself (where I find out which kit was which AFTER subjective listening tests).
Like every one else on head-fi I have been told off by ‘people more scientific than myself’ regarding my measurements; where muppets who assume everyone does everything wrong want to school me (including the links to mind science webpages about bias), and assume I cannot volume match two sources etc...
I write this to say that antagonistic unsocials like to sometimes pretend they run these pages, but they generally know not to climb too far out of the ‘audio science’ basement from which they lurk (some become silver tongued when on regular threads). The counterpoint is to turn up on ASR and talk emotionally. There -science is the rule- by which everything, including your sentences will be measured. There are other audio sites, some purporting to be the opposite of ASR.. Of course even the most ‘pagan’ amongst us love science. The tablet I write this on and the keyboard that I connect to it are all soundly scientific devices. The electricity that flows through them may be ‘an invisible force’, and brief testing with said electricity warms me that it should be well controlled. (I threw a valve amp up in the air more than a metre upon being ‘shocked’ one time. It was my birthday present, on my birthday,.. to say that the whole event played out in ‘slow motion’ is an understatement. The nineteen valves spinning through the air gracefully as I was thrown clear across the room; I don’t mess with science!)
Head-fi as a site has had many ‘phoenix from the flames’ moments.
(where science brawls with experience)
There has been a few times where passionate audiofoolz have ‘moved the forum’ to zones they feel they have more control over, maybe even limiting the subscriptions and encourage ‘one mindset’ for engaging.
Head-fi seems to still be the best stepping board for newbies, who will generally meet a more transitory user base (a lot of ‘flavour of the moment’ audiophiles here), but with many many years of combined wisdom and knowledge to draw upon (from left AND right brained types).
Arguing spec sheets/semantics can only get so far, and then ‘real world experience’ herds the masses in weird ways. I have seen professional journos on high end audio sites get slammed for pressing lists of ten or twenty ‘tricks for under $100’ than can help a hifi rig.
The comments more than 90% stacked against the article, listing how stupid they are (and quoting science), which rings odd to people like myself who found that 95%+ of the tricks (having been tested previously) work wonderfully.
___________________-= opinionated example=-________________
In brief, I understand that digital is zeros and ones. In THEORY a cable (or even a transport) shouldn’t matter.(?)
In the REALWORLD, that binary storage format (0s/1s) is transmitted by cable ‘as a wavelength’. (!)(how do you like them apples?)
a wavelength with all sorts of error corrections taking place... (to keep the numbers flowing super smoothly, being a requisite of DAC interpretation)
-It is one thing to argue that a ladder DAC has greater variations of the signal level, that delta sigma circuits can ‘guess’/‘estimate’ AVERAGES to the same effect. In this instance, I would argue that the misinformation is controlled in the direction it can effect. (The ladder DAC being more accurate at any given point, vs ‘the other circuits’ being ‘close enough’ most of the time). The variation between the parts should be minimal when looking for gross errors (with the exception of the difficulty of making a ladder DAC perform perfectly given the electrical requirements), with both methods giving an acceptable baseline.
-Whereas the variations in a digital feed (0s and 1s) that is ‘being corrected’ means that the transient can be one frame delayed (potentially partly missed) or held for several ‘in the wrong place’(held too long, then decay unnaturally)(and in a world of audio interpretation by humans- bass notes can run for twenty metres- that is ‘a lot of perfect reads’ to get right IN A ROW.. (error correctionable?-hahahah). This is why a decent USB cable that can actually meet a USB spec requirement (many will not) will give wider soundfield and better placement of the ‘rows’ of the orchestra, ‘remove congestion’ etc. And fix fast transients!! etc etc etc
=>but SSSsssshhhhh! (do not tell anyone)- USB cables mattering (to high end audio chains) IS perfectly scientific, just not to anyone living on a flat earth who think that USB cables pass ‘actual zeros and ones’; bless them.
_____________________________________-=normal posts raising a topic /‘can of worms’=-_____
I had been a very ‘long time reader’ when I finally subscribed just so I could educate some whining lil kid who liked to double amplify kit (highly compressing the sound wherever possible) and talk smack about some headphone manufacturers simply due to a sale that started after said kid bought some ‘expensive’ headphones.
I love information, even stuff that goes against my present understanding (chance to learn something), but mis-information I have a big issue with.
If life is like one big science experiment, then all we need is ‘accurate data’.
Life is ‘hard enough’ to have to filter out the mis information and waste time sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Of course it is the marketing department of the ‘modern world’ to obsfucate the details so that $$$ flows towards them...
So we get a four way pull; people who know what they are talking about / people who don’t AND science helping the discussion / science hurting the discussion.
In all quadrants we find great arguments, often ‘very persuasive’ and likely ‘well meaning’.
Recognising some ‘faces in the crowd’ (names in post heading) will give us the insight to know who to side with in ‘any given argument’.
Really though- the arguments aren’t so bad, and if done well enough, many peeps learn something along the way.
I’d rate my audio knowledge as ‘poor’ (vs my specialities) and I am happy to eat humble pie every chance I can get. Sadly, my four decades of audio tinkering (and the $$$ given to the hobby, trialing ‘nice kit’ for years/decades), puts me in the audio specialist category.
In the real world I would defer to any on site audio tech in a heartbeat, mostly due to specific training and ‘specialist’. In the PC space it is the exact opposite, where I have gone to length to argue with ‘world record holding’ overclockers regarding basic PC setup (mine being built to be inaudiable). Quite simply in these circumstances I know I will have put more time in and know my bits better than some ‘specialist’ who walks through the room and passes comment.
No matter how much you engage with someone on head-fi forum or via personal message (or the wider web); at best they ‘have casually walked through’ your room.
Trust in yourself and your local specialist with whom you likely have a working relationship. (they might even be a head-fi member/or likely ‘reader’)
A lot of pundits of head-fi are here for the journey- the journey being ‘good music’ (/‘sound’ for gamers), and an enjoyable time with this hobby.
I’d like to say I am here simply for ‘bragging rights’, but I don’t spend enough, annually, on this hobby to stay at the top of the game. I DO understand, with a very real sense of ‘a greater timeline’, the directions audio has been going in over the last fifty years.
That leads me to some strong opinions regarding ‘value for money’ and where to invest $$$.
My personal hobby extends, in the hifi world, to assisting others build Goliath slaying systems for ‘David’ (pauper) prices.
I love the middle tier ‘best bang for buck’ builds and often relegate anything cheaper to ‘junk-fi’ that the world cannot afford to produce and (re)produce.
Brands that service their parts beyond warranty periods and who offer firmwares with new features for ‘outdated tech’ are often the ones I champion most.
When those companies make ‘good pieces’ that are exceptional bang for buck I literally climb to the top of a nearby roof, with a megaphone, and tell everybody who cares to listen.
This is why I sometimes hang out on headfi- as the pages are filled with inquisitive minds always happy to learn where something is retailing at 70% off, or keen to use eldritch devices in esoteric ways..
Also superb for giving public feedback about present retail chain experiences AND manufacturers and their support ethos.
(ie is warranty worth anything from manufacturer X? how hard is it to contact and get feedback from company Y?)
___________
Where next?
Maybe need to start with the difference between an open back headphone vs a closed back style...
(//joking, but really; if you don’t know: probably start with this enquiry to try and gain some ‘headphone basics’.)
edit: (not really) a cut n paste made this ‘messy’; going to post n see how it formats; replies encouraged by Headfi ‘Oldtimers’ who read this (newbies take note: those posters VIEWING this thread means they are keeping abreast of Newbie help concerns). Middlers who have had some whack advice/‘over the top‘ recommendations (that reaffirm how headfiers ‘go big or go home‘), or any newbies that want to raise questions and wonder where answers might be. (the idea being that a thread is owned by the people who ACTIVELY POST in it. Oldtimers and those familiar with search commands could probably give great links to those with ‘new enquiries’.
A community is as strong as ‘the weakest link’. Please treat others the way we would wish to be treated.
R camp- clearly you aren’t searching for text/‘missives’.
