[frenchbat]

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

 
If anyone wants to talk about fact relevance, then, he's my guest. Because everyone can actually get something out of the discussion. Thing is, blind testing is a fact checking method, that right now is quasi systematically maligned in the forum, SS section aside. And other tests are most of the time poorly understood, and/or used as a way to justify people's choices with cherry picking.

I've seen written earlier that the problem was pride, and I'm very much agreeing with that. I wouldn't be comfortable with a forum where the richer gets the last word simply because they can afford and hear the gear, and not anyone else. Having the means to fund your hobby is a great thing, but that doesn't make anyone's opinion more relevant. The fact that our ears, wether one likes it or not, are highly inefficient measurement instruments and prone to sound illusions, makes subjective statement alone, literally useless as a source of information. Using one's ear to confirm that some headphone suits one's liking, that perfectly fine to me. Saying that it's the only way to make a decision, is just plain delusionary.
 
You're saying that it's a normal reaction for humans to "simplify" things, so they can understand, or "make sense" out of the information they get. True that, I do agree. But should that be the preferred or only way for this forum ? Shutting (shooting ?) down almost any discussion involving SBT or DBT in the main forums, makes people think that's the consensus. And little by little, the idea that science is the basis of our hobby is simply disappearing, while the people interested in science slowly gets bitter.
 
Ironically, we probably have never had such good hobby-specific information available than right now. Personal point-of-view aside, V's graphs are a valuable piece of info, and Innerfidelity is giving us some of the most comprehensive reviews on headphones ever. Not because they say the "truth", but because they state facts, within given limits. I could also point at Goldenears, and others. Now I get the "no abusive linking" rules and such, the attitude problems (on both sides), etc ..., but why isn't this information coming out on "the biggest headphone forum in the world", instead of coming from outside ? And shouldn't this be embraced by the forum, as a way to attract members ?
 
 
Quote:

Indeed. However, there is also the relevance of facts to a discussion as well. A very good example is the common statement that digital "is just ones and zeros" which, on one level is true, but on another is not and ignores a great deal of important, valid information about electronic signal transmission.  It's human nature to want to have answers and "truth" simplified and not make the effort to expand one's understanding, which doesn't work well with audio, which is too complicated. A person has to go in the other extreme and just "follow one's ears" otherwise.

 

 
 

 

[mikeaj]

@frenchbat:
 
Agreed above.  It's not just the hard data, but a lot of key development on audio encoders (FLAC, better mp3 / Vorbis / whatever), software music players, Rockbox, plugins, and so on, also originated elsewhere.  Though to head-fi's credit, there are some contributions you may be glossing over or overlooking like headphone CSD plots, others with homebrew measurement gear, and so on.  Most of these come from members though.
 
 
To me, in terms of sound quality, here's the main analysis and line of thought regarding O2 (or another amp) vs. TOTL:

• If you give headphones the exact same input signal twice, they will produce the exact same sound both times. [A]
• Hypothetically, if two different amps produced the exact same signal driving the same headphones, they should sound the same will produce the same sound.   [edit: sorry for the looseness earlier] [*] If two different amps produced almost exactly the same signal driving the same headphones, the sound produced by the headphones should be almost exactly the same. [C] [*] If the signals in part #3 are really, really close, people shouldn't be able to tell them apart by listening.  [D]

 
 

Spoiler: Notes%20A-D%20to%20the%20above

[A] If you're wearing the headphones and expecting to get the same sound to your eardrums, you'd need the headphones positioned exactly the same, sitting in the same room (could be very small room reflections) with all the other same circumstances too.  For example, we also need to assume that the headphones remain the same, even though in practice they could be very slightly changing over time.  The signal here can be music or anything else.  
 
This follows from #1 because it's given in the statement that the signal remains the same.  We assume the same scenario as in [A] (and thereafter, we do the same).
 
[C] This follows from headphones being reasonably close to linear and well behaved.  Similar inputs should produce similar outputs.  You can consider the signal produced by the second amp to be the same as the signal produced by the first amp, plus a small difference (or call it "error") signal.  Actually if headphones were linear, you could use superposition and analyze the really small contribution by the small difference signal.  In practice, headphones don't behave exactly that way, but it should be close enough for these purposes.
 
[D] How close is close enough?  There have been studies on this, though new data is good.  If the O2 or any other amp is not close enough to TOTL, then this could be demonstrated by the proper listening tests with the right controls.  I don't see any strong agreement on the correct threshold of close enough, and in practice, it may depend on the individual listener and listening circumstances.  Ethan Winer mentions some conditions (which may well be overly stringent) in the Audio Myths Workshop, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
 
It's impossible for the human eye to tell apart very very small differences in appearance, and the same goes for about anything, including sound.  Fortunately, we don't all have infinite acuity on all senses.
 

 
 
The new thing I've noticed (maybe I'm dumb, so I didn't really think about this earlier?), is that some people like to say "science this", "science that", "true scientists", or something else, with regards to whether or not two amps in practice, could behave very similarly, as stipulated by part #4.  Actually, with electronic amplifiers, we're talking about carefully-constructed engineering systems, more than anything else.  Why do people bring up science so much, when we're interested in engineering?  Yes, I understand why, but I thought it was worth pointing out.  In science, but maybe even more so in engineering, what we're interested in is when models are valid, how to apply different models, and understanding the limitations of models.
 
For certain engineering systems, the behavior—looking at input/output relationships and so on—is very predictable because they're designed to be that way.  Certain models can be quite good at describing reality.  This is the basis behind why a lot of modern technology actually works.  For amps, we're furthermore only interested in a set of very well-behaved input signals (audio-frequency signals**), for which the amp is designed for.  They're being operated within specification, for our purposes.
 
** I mean that all audio-frequency signals are well-behaved, from a mathematical perspective.  This includes any music, not just like test tones.  (Okay, there's also going to be a little bit of noise from outside the audio range too.)

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:
 
Engineering is making something that measures/produces 'X'.  That's it.  
 
The science comes in when people claim any 'X' must sound 'X'.  It's philosophy when they say 'X' should sound 'X'.  It's psychology when they say 'X' is perceived as 'Y'.  Etc, etc.
 
It seems it's often the claimed engineers that bring the rest of the baggage to the discussion making it an interdisciplinary exercise beyond the scope of their expertise.  Things like wine tasting, DBT, corporate conspiracies, expectation bias have nothing to do w/ engineering last I checked.  
 

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

 

Spoiler: Off-topic%20discussion%20inside.

 
It's the same in any industry. However, having been here before the HD-800s, Hifiman and Audeze when the ED9s were considered TOTL, I can say that there has definitely been an improvement in headphone quality, with the smaller manufacturers seriously challenging the bigger ones, both subjectively and measurably. If anything, claims that various new headphones were only FOTM were written....many months ago. Much of the discussion recently has been about what is wrong with the headphones, almost more so than what is right. Despite (ahem!) claims about sponsors and censorship, both Sennheiser and Audeze have been absolutely hammered in the forums over the past year. The discussion about the LCD-3s for the last 20 or so pages, if not many more before that, have been about whether it is safe to buy a pair.
 

 
Agreed - I've been following the LCD-3 saga at InnerFidelity and its profoundly depressing. I can only assume that demand for these headphones caught Aude'ze with their pants down, but that seems to be happening with several high-end products. My understanding is that Headamp are taking their time to fill backorders, but when your BHSE arrives its likely to be 100% reliable from day one - that is purely based on what I'm reading - always willing to hear from someone who has had a different experience. 

 

 

[mikeaj]

@ Anax:
 
Yes, thanks, I should have made those things more clear.  The bottom part of the post was indeed about designing systems that deliver X, nothing more.  Some people have questioned how or why it should be this way, with different amp designs.  I should have also been more careful regarding the sound produced versus the sound perceived.
 
As for the rest, as you've said, and as many other people have said, it's multidisciplinary.  However, it's quite possible for laypeople to be right about any of these topics (and for experts to be wrong about their actual expertise).
 
Also, the fact that input A produces output B implies that another input C equal to A will also produce output B, does fall under engineering as well.  Or math.  Or whatever you want to call it.
 
You agree with all four points, just not that any two amps in practice actually achieve the "close enough" threshold?  Or do you find fault anywhere there?  How about two builds of the same amp model?  Is anybody suggesting that people can tell apart sounds that are identical?  How about nearly identical, where "near" can be as close as you wish, hypothetically?

 

[frenchbat]

@Mikeaj
 
Of course, headfi has also some great contributors and it's always welcome to see fellow members with real skills make some very interesting contributions to the community. Anax and Purrin musings are indeed very interesting and, IMHO, useful for the understanding of the hobby. But they don't get much more interest than what we get here in SS, and Purrin even decided to take the discussion somewhere else.
 
@Anax
 
Given that the hobby actually is the combination of art, engineering, and psychology, I see interdisciplinarity as unavoidable. Some might see it different, but even a clumsy attempt at raising valid points in the discussion is worth it. I could actually reverse the point of view and say that "something is rotten in the state of Headfi", if engineers are the ones that have to bring psychology and psychoaccoustics' discussions on the table, because they're obviously ill-equipped to rise that kind of point.

 

[Magick Man]

Why do people care? Aesthetics aside, the O2 is a nice amp and a great value. However, there are other fine amps in the <$500 bracket that are great values. For instance; the EF-5, LD I+, Lyr, LD Mk IV, Matrix M-Stage... and it keeps going, it's a long list. I like value amps, I own a few of them. However, they don't really touch my Cary. Then again, if you factor in part costs, footprint, and build quality, I can see why. There's nothing wrong, at all, with solid mid-fi gear. Just like there's nothing a bit wrong with $25k Stax and Orpheus rigs. They're all bought for enjoyment, and fostering defensiveness and hostility isn't what Head-Fi is about, at least not to me. Go to a meet and you'll see, we share, talk, laugh, and enjoy what everyone brings. It's community, not confrontation.

Now I guess we'll join hands and sing Kum Ba Yah around the fire, or some such thing.

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

Why do people care? Aesthetics aside, the O2 is a nice amp and a great value. However, there are other fine amps in the <$500 bracket that are great values. For instance; the EF-5, LD I+, Lyr, LD Mk IV, Matrix M-Stage... and it keeps going, it's a long list. I like value amps, I own a few of them. However, they don't really touch my Cary. Then again, if you factor in part costs, footprint, and build quality, I can see why. There's nothing wrong, at all, with solid mid-fi gear. Just like there's nothing a bit wrong with $25k Stax and Orpheus rigs. They're all bought for enjoyment, and fostering defensiveness and hostility isn't what Head-Fi is about, at least not to me. Go to a meet and you'll see, we share, talk, laugh, and enjoy what everyone brings. It's community, not confrontation.
Now I guess we'll join hands and sing Kum Ba Yah around the fire, or some such thing.

Fire ? Keep that up and I can guarantee you flames ........  

 
Seriously, your question should be directed to the OP - he felt the need to throw down the gauntlet, and seems to have found that chain mail leaves a nasty welt. 

 

[keanex]

Quote:

Why do people care? Aesthetics aside, the O2 is a nice amp and a great value. However, there are other fine amps in the <$500 bracket that are great values. For instance; the EF-5, LD I+, Lyr, LD Mk IV, Matrix M-Stage... and it keeps going, it's a long list. I like value amps, I own a few of them. However, they don't really touch my Cary. Then again, if you factor in part costs, footprint, and build quality, I can see why. There's nothing wrong, at all, with solid mid-fi gear. Just like there's nothing a bit wrong with $25k Stax and Orpheus rigs. They're all bought for enjoyment, and fostering defensiveness and hostility isn't what Head-Fi is about, at least not to me. Go to a meet and you'll see, we share, talk, laugh, and enjoy what everyone brings. It's community, not confrontation.

 
I was under the impression that the Little Dot amps were actually pretty bad all things considered, they're just popular because they're cheap tube options (which never works well). As for Schiit's products, they've had too many problems for me to consider.

 

[PeachesNCream]

Quote:

 
I was under the impression that the Little Dot amps were actually pretty bad all things considered, they're just popular because they're cheap tube options (which never works well). As for Schiit's products, they've had too many problems for me to consider.

Pretty much all the testing I've seen validates your conclusions. I had to send my Schiit products back because they were defective so I just took the refund. Now I am looking for a V90 to fill the gap and pick up an ODA when JDS offers pre-orders of the assembled version.
 
Cheers,

 

[Magick Man]

I was under the impression that the Little Dot amps were actually pretty bad all things considered, they're just popular because they're cheap tube options (which never works well). As for Schiit's products, they've had too many problems for me to consider.

Pretty much all the testing I've seen validates your conclusions. I had to send my Schiit products back because they were defective so I just took the refund. Now I am looking for a V90 to fill the gap and pick up an ODA when JDS offers pre-orders of the assembled version.

Cheers,

People often make those comments when they line them up against gear that's 5-10x more expensive. With few exceptions, I've seen just about every manufacturer of audio gear bashed on forums, for one reason or another. The LDs I've heard are actually quite well made and have a very pleasing sound for their price point. They represent a good value. Overall, the reviews I've seen are rather positive, the bad impressions seem to be more the exception than the rule. Personally, I tend to get suspicious of extremely negative "tests", given how much brand loyalty and competition is involved in audio. I know for a fact shills and extreme loyalists exist in large numbers in this hobby, so you really have to be careful accepting what is said. A lot of times it ultimately comes down to being your own judge and listening for yourself.

Cheap tube options can be fine, but they seldom end up as cheap as they started when you factor in better tubes, opamps, caps, etc.. The benefit is that it gives you a good launching point, somewhere to start exploring while you decide what you want out of your equipment. My two main rigs are... pricey, and still expanding. However, the gear I started with was/is important, it's all part of the process. Like I said before, do these less expensive options hold a candle to my SLI-80? Not a chance. But they are still excellent in their own way.

 

[morks]

Quote:

I know for a fact shills and extreme loyalists exist in large numbers in this hobby, so you really have to be careful accepting what is said. A lot of times it ultimately comes down to being your own judge and listening for yourself.

Or have independant parties measure the stuff, that'd be easier for everyone else Remember that shills and fanboys are only a problem when there's no external party that can spotlight lies.
 
When reading these forums, I always remember a funny study: Psychologists sat down various people at consoles, in pairs, separated by a wall from each other so each couldn't see what the other was doing. They had to categorize various pictures of cells as either "normal" or "pathological" via trial and error, without prior laboratory training. When they pressed a button, they were shown whether they were right or wrong. The catch was, only subject A was classifying the pictures. Subject B could press whatever button he wanted, he was always shown whether A was correct or wrong, so his own diagnosis didn't matter, but he didn't know that. Subject A got the hang of it eventually and classified most pictures correctly. B was however living in his own world so to speak, his diagnosis had no connection to the feedback he got, so he had to constantly question his previous, now contradicting assumptions. Neither knew each other's score. When asked how they classified the cells afterwards, A came up with simple and concrete explanations and B with very subtle and elaborate ones (after all, he came to them via contradictory assumptions) -- both were basically talking about different realities but were convinced that they were talking about the same thing. The real joke was: after listening to B, A was impressed and assumed that his simple explanations were worse than B's elaborate ones -- the more absurd B's ideas were, the more A was impressed by their detailed brilliance! They were asked to do the same test again, but first they had to guess whether A or B would be more accurate now. Most guessed B. And so it was, because A took on some of B's explanations so A was actually wrong more often. The corollary is that when humans are confronted with things they don't understand and try to get their heads around it, wrong theories of how stuff works tend not to be thrown away but expanded to wrap around corner cases and contradictions.
 
I have the feeling that this is the cause of the "you must listen to it to form your own opinion" notion. Simple descriptions like e.g. the HD 650s sounding darker than the DT 880s are easy to verify. But elaborate descriptions of how amps, dacs, cables, etc. sound and compare to each other are most likely wrong (as e.g. DBT of cables or level-volumed DBT of well-enough-made amps show) and therefore contradict each other. Instead of questioning those subjective reviews by others, all of them are given weight because obviously all these people can't be wrong with their detailed analyses! You can't derive anything useful from a bunch of contradictions, but you don't want to discard them either (e.g. with the help of double-blind tests), so instead you establish the opinion that you have to listen to something to form your own (probably wrong) opinion about it and discredit anything that would undermine this stance (e.g. double-blind tests). The simpler, more probable alternative would be to assume that most, if not all, audiophile writing is wrong and that Head-Fi is nothing more than a dumping ground of fallacies. Note how there's not a single person to blame -- it's the group dynamic.
 
The tragedy is that budding audiophiles who don't know better are driven by general forum thrust into buying expensive crap they could be happy without. There would be no problem if the forum would tell these newbies "Hey, don't worry, just enjoy your HD 800! If you want something special, try these amps, dacs, whatever, they change around the sound some, maybe you'll like it. But they aren't necessary for a good experience." Pro tip: if you're happy with the sound you're getting with your HD 800s out of your PC's onboard sound plug and the phones play loud enough for you, you don't need an amp. Really. All the people who report just how lush this and that amp/cable/whatever sound are most likely not just imagining things but they would also be happy if they didn't knew about the gear in question (or not, because they seek an emotional rush that their music/rig cannot give them, but then the problem lies in their head, not in their rig).
 
I just noticed how I've not written anything in English for quite a while. I hope this thing is readable.. too tired..

 

[Rebel975]

Quote:

I just noticed how I've not written anything in English for quite a while. I hope this thing is readable.. too tired..

 
Very readable, and interesting too. Don't sweat it.

 

[LizardKing1]

Awesome post morks. You wouldn't happen to know the author of that experience?
 
One thing that got me thinking was that many people justify buying a >1k$ amp with build quality. I can understand a lot of the reasons, but here I think you just hit a treshold where is gets ridiculous. The case for the O2 is thick aluminum. I doubt it could sustain a gunshot, so maybe that DarkStar would be better used in a zombie apocalypse. I just don't see how this is a worthy reason. Do people even move thousand-dollar desktop amps around, let alone put them in situations where they would need extra durability? Other than that the only situation I can think of is the amp falling down from a shelf, of which I would expect the O2 to survive much better than those huge amps, given its lesser weight.

 

[estreeter]

I think we are living in a fantasy world if we believe these 'independent parties' wouldn't be funded by the audio industry, or at the very least reliant on their co-operation for review samples. All this talk of  'shills' and ad revenue is fantastic until you find yourself needing to pay the bills - I could be wrong, but I don't think forum support is legal tender anywhere. Stereophile routinely publish measurements with their reviews, but it seems to be the subjective part of any given review which is subjected to ridicule by the audio cognoscenti on this and other forums. When you have niches with a niche industry like high-end audio, it folllows that one hand has a vested interest in washing the other. Would you enjoy going to trade shows knowing that you had written negative reviews on almost every vendor at that show ? 
 
I'm not defending the snake oil salesmen, but neither am I prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater.