O2 Build Complete: Let the objective, subjective listening tests commence!

[LizardKing1]

Quote:

 

The 'perfect' amp is neither harsh and cold, nor warm and smooth.

 
Quote:

The perfect amp will basically allow a headphone (with its own intrinsic limitations) to do its absolute best in recreating the source material. That's all there is to the holy grail; if the perfect amp sounds 'harsh or cold' it's because the recorded material has these characteristics or the headphones have a FR or other measurements that translate into this perceived sonic signature.
 

You're both right, I'll rephrase that: the perfect amp will show us the recorded material exactly as intended (considering a perfect DAC and line-out cable, USB doesn't matter). So, this played file will have all the information in the original digital file, which will obviously have a lot more detail than what we're used to. That kind of sound, which I repeat is not colored, is according to our Head-Fi jargon "dry" and "harsh", at least from what I understand. I don't mean to say that the amp makes it harsh, I just mean that a very good, or perfect, amp will show us the original music we would describe as harsh because we're not used to perfect amps.

 

[qusp]

Quote:

 

You're both right, I'll rephrase that: the perfect amp will show us the recorded material exactly as intended (considering a perfect DAC and line-out cable, USB doesn't matter). So, this played file will have all the information in the original digital file, which will obviously have a lot more detail than what we're used to. That kind of sound, which I repeat is not colored, is according to our Head-Fi jargon "dry" and "harsh", at least from what I understand. I don't mean to say that the amp makes it harsh, I just mean that a very good, or perfect, amp will show us the original music we would describe as harsh because we're not used to perfect amps.

nope, it would only be described as harsh is the recording was harsh. 'the wire' is about as perfect as it gets measurement-wise and i wouldnt describe it as harsh, i would describe it as right
 
some people who are used to sound being softened in some way might describe it as harsh with bad material; its all a matter of perspective

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

<snip>

That kind of sound, which I repeat is not colored, is according to our Head-Fi jargon "dry" and "harsh", at least from what I understand.
 
<snip>

If a recording was mastered well it will sound good.  If it was mastered poorly it will sound it.  The perfect amp, as everyone has already said, has no sound at all.  All it will do is make the music louder.  You will hear it just as it was recorded.
 
I think most of us with the better SS designs have a pretty good idea what a "perfect" amp sounds like.
 

 

[Head Injury]

His point, I think, is that the average audiophile thinks true neutrality in an amp sounds "harsh" (even though it's only as harsh as the recording, DAC, and headphones), because they're so enamored with tube distortion (or THD meant to mimic tubes).

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

His point, I think, is that the average audiophile thinks true neutrality in an amp sounds "harsh" (even though it's only as harsh as the recording, DAC, and headphones), because they're so enamored with tube distortion (or THD meant to mimic tubes).

That may be his point but I don't agree with it. I think the average audiophile wants an amp that doesn't color the sound. 

 

[LizardKing1]

Ok let's try this again slowly: I'm not saying "harsh" is somehow bad. I only used that term when referring to a certain post where the user said the original O2 sounded bad with his HD650. I said of course, since the HD650 are known for being smooth headphones, and the O2 would make them sound harsh, since it's a harsh amp in comparison. Ok? Can we drop it now? I know most of you are salivating from the opportunity to drop some knowledge, but understand if someone already reached this page on this thread, they probably already know the sermon. The O2 isn't harsh, yes, but since it measures so well with such low levels of distortion, the detail it allows through will make it sound harsh with most other amps, at least in its price range, to what most people are used to; i.e. people are used to colored smooth amps which are their neutral, so when a truly neutral low-THD comes along it sounds harsh. And thank you Head Injury, that was pretty much what I meant (although I wouldn't refer specifically to tubes since I have not yet read enough on them, let alone heard a tube amp).

 

[cheapskateaudio]

Quote:

Ok let's try this again slowly: I'm not saying "harsh" is somehow bad. I only used that term when referring to a certain post where the user said the original O2 sounded bad with his HD650. I said of course, since the HD650 are known for being smooth headphones, and the O2 would make them sound harsh, since it's a harsh amp in comparison. Ok? Can we drop it now? I know most of you are salivating from the opportunity to drop some knowledge, but understand if someone already reached this page on this thread, they probably already know the sermon. The O2 isn't harsh, yes, but since it measures so well with such low levels of distortion, the detail it allows through will make it sound harsh with most other amps, at least in its price range, to what most people are used to; i.e. people are used to colored smooth amps which are their neutral, so when a truly neutral low-THD comes along it sounds harsh. And thank you Head Injury, that was pretty much what I meant (although I wouldn't refer specifically to tubes since I have not yet read enough on them, let alone heard a tube amp).

Don't get the idea when I say "smooth" that the amp is masking details, it is actually revealing more details. For me, harsh is *not* detail or brightness even. The first design was harsh to me in sounding compressed and screechy at times, there was less midrange separation, it sounded kind of smeared like the details were out of alignment. The updates brought everything into far greater "alignment" if that makes sense. The midrange feels more open and structured, sounds have presence in space and have a definition that is like the face of a cliff or a carving, it's real, static, and whole.
 
 

 

[DRUB]

Quote:

Ok let's try this again slowly: I'm not saying "harsh" is somehow bad. I only used that term when referring to a certain post where the user said the original O2 sounded bad with his HD650. I said of course, since the HD650 are known for being smooth headphones, and the O2 would make them sound harsh, since it's a harsh amp in comparison. Ok? Can we drop it now? I know most of you are salivating from the opportunity to drop some knowledge, but understand if someone already reached this page on this thread, they probably already know the sermon. The O2 isn't harsh, yes, but since it measures so well with such low levels of distortion, the detail it allows through will make it sound harsh with most other amps, at least in its price range, to what most people are used to; i.e. people are used to colored smooth amps which are their neutral, so when a truly neutral low-THD comes along it sounds harsh. And thank you Head Injury, that was pretty much what I meant (although I wouldn't refer specifically to tubes since I have not yet read enough on them, let alone heard a tube amp).

 
 


Quote:

Don't get the idea when I say "smooth" that the amp is masking details, it is actually revealing more details. For me, harsh is *not* detail or brightness even. The first design was harsh to me in sounding compressed and screechy at times, there was less midrange separation, it sounded kind of smeared like the details were out of alignment. The updates brought everything into far greater "alignment" if that makes sense. The midrange feels more open and structured, sounds have presence in space and have a definition that is like the face of a cliff or a carving, it's real, static, and whole.
 
 

The issue here is semantics - both of you are using conventionally opposed terminology to describe the same thing. A perpetual issue with subjective language.

 

[cheapskateaudio]

 
Quote:

 
 


The issue here is semantics - both of you are using conventionally opposed terminology to describe the same thing. A perpetual issue with subjective language.

I think we all know what harsh means, the question is what defines harsh, and the answer is that many things can be labelled "harsh". Harsh can be a personality trait, or it can be a sound, or a description of the weather, which could be too hot or too cold. It's called context.
 

 

[Head Injury]

It can even be entirely unrelated to all measurable phenomena, yet eliminated by rolling opamps, apparently.

 

[skeptic]

     Quote:

Don't get the idea when I say "smooth" that the amp is masking details, it is actually revealing more details. For me, harsh is *not* detail or brightness even. The first design was harsh to me in sounding compressed and screechy at times, there was less midrange separation, it sounded kind of smeared like the details were out of alignment. The updates brought everything into far greater "alignment" if that makes sense. The midrange feels more open and structured, sounds have presence in space and have a definition that is like the face of a cliff or a carving, it's real, static, and whole.
 
 

Based on your description - is it possible one of your now replaced stock components was a lemon?

 

[cheapskateaudio]

 
Quote:

It can even be entirely unrelated to all measurable phenomena, yet eliminated by rolling opamps, apparently.

Please show me the person who has command of "all measurable phenomena" LOL.
 
I'll be laughing at that for awhile.
 
 
 

 

[cheapskateaudio]

 
Quote:

     Quote:

Based on your description - is it possible one of your now replaced stock components was a lemon?

Many things are possible.
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Please show me the person who has command of "all measurable phenomena" LOL.
 
I'll be laughing at that for awhile.

There is no indication of "harshness" in the O2's measurements. This gives us a few possible reasons for how you removed harshness:

1. Something in your O2 was faulty
2. Something else in your chain is harsh, and the changes to your O2 mask and distort that
3. There is a yet unmeasured phenomena at work
4. It's all in your head

 

[cheapskateaudio]

Quote:

There is no indication of "harshness" in the O2's measurements. This gives us a few possible reasons for how you removed harshness:

1. Something in your O2 was faulty
2. Something else in your chain is harsh, and the changes to your O2 mask and distort that
3. There is a yet unmeasured phenomena at work
4. It's all in your head

I wish people would stop pretending this amp is some kind of reference design. I saw the O2's gain stage in a PDF for a TI opamp. It's a cool little amp to build and have a blast with but it's far from being a big time performer. In fact, the O2's performance makes me think someone cobbled together circuits from a variety of pdf's, measured them with a scope they probably bought at a flea market, and decided to "turn the audio world on end" with this new fangled concept of measuring things.
 
Don't get me wrong, I like the amp, I just think it's absurd how this amp has been placed on a pedestal, and I'll admit I was one of the people who initially was ready to call into question everyone else, but the fact is it's this amp that is wrong, not the rest of the world.