- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Posts
- 16,414
- Likes
- 3,085
Quote:
Hm, that's true....:thinking-smile:
Quote:
From the tests I just did, the instruments sound a little more spread apart in my head on the O2 compared to the C5 and they have better definition. I find that the C5's imaging is a bit more towards the center, which would be better "synergy" for the K 701 since I find the K 701's center imaging a bit left out (subjective stuff yeah). The difference isn't huge, but it's noticeable to me with the K 701 and might be a reason why I tend to use the C5 at home with the K 701 over the O2 (not to say the O2 sounds bad, but just a personal preference).
I might try this test at school with multimeter volume-matching for a more accurate test.
Is there a relatively inexpensive way to get more accurate in-person testing results? I feel like there's a better way to do these tests without having to constantly switch cables, pause/play music, etc. *this part should probably be in the Sound Science threads, but we're kind of on the topic anyway*
Quote:You bring up some very good points there; thank you for the explanation.
You mention measurements often being incomplete, I think the same can be said for the O2 and ODAC as well. The designer of the Objective gear only did so many tests too.
I brought up Leckerton in a previous post because I think it was Currawong(?) who said that the O2 may sound good, but it may have a non-linear response in certain cases....I can't completely remember what was said. I recently came upon this website with different measurements between a Leckerton amp and the O2 and from those specific measurements, the Leckerton performed better objectively than the O2. Would this non-linearity be a reason why some people say the Leckerton sounds "more detailed" than the O2?
For a perfectly ideal linear system (and time invariant) one perfect measurement is sufficient. For everything in the real world, you need more if you want a better characterization. So yeah, we've seen a lot on the O2 from the designer and others but not everything (can't get everything), and we've seen just some on the ODAC. However, the more well-behaved something is and closer to ideal, the closer the output would be to a completely known and predictable response, so I wouldn't expect huge surprises lurking if you were to somehow test some different signal or some other reasonable audio input and setup.
An unevenness in frequency response is not a nonlinearity, by the technical meaning of the word, by the way, but I see what you mean.
Note that the difference in frequency response as measured for that test is pretty much entirely a direct consequence of the slightly higher output impedance. With pretty much anything other than a certain IEM with a really wild impedance curve, it would be much much flatter (and even considering extreme cases like these, do fraction of a dB differences really have much impact on the sound? Discernible and shouldn't be trivialized, but put it in perspective.). Many or most people talking about the different amps probably aren't using those exact IEMs; you'd see something else with some other IEMs or headphones.
Even if you were to assume that everybody comparing were using an IEM like that, an FR difference like that is unlikely to make people think one device is more detailed than another.
As I mentioned before, you can find differences with some bench measurements, but do they really correspond to what people say they hear?
Hm, that's true....:thinking-smile:
Quote:
Describe the differences you heard.
From the tests I just did, the instruments sound a little more spread apart in my head on the O2 compared to the C5 and they have better definition. I find that the C5's imaging is a bit more towards the center, which would be better "synergy" for the K 701 since I find the K 701's center imaging a bit left out (subjective stuff yeah). The difference isn't huge, but it's noticeable to me with the K 701 and might be a reason why I tend to use the C5 at home with the K 701 over the O2 (not to say the O2 sounds bad, but just a personal preference).
I might try this test at school with multimeter volume-matching for a more accurate test.
Is there a relatively inexpensive way to get more accurate in-person testing results? I feel like there's a better way to do these tests without having to constantly switch cables, pause/play music, etc. *this part should probably be in the Sound Science threads, but we're kind of on the topic anyway*