O2 vs TOTL

[Draygonn]

would be better used in a zombie apocalypse.

This is my justification for a Stax rig. I'll build a moat around my house, when they try to cross I'll toss the 'earspeakers' in.

 

[Magick Man]

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.

Don't know about everyone here, but one of the big reasons why I bought my Cary is because it looks awesome. Sure, the sound and flexibility are great, more than great, but there's a lot to be said about how bad ass a big tube amp looks. Nice glass of wine, low lights, glowing tubes, beautiful workmanship, and favorite tunes, for me it doesn't get any better than that, at least not with my clothes on.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Don't know about everyone here, but one of the big reasons why I bought my Cary is because it looks awesome. Sure, the sound and flexibility are great, more than great, but there's a lot to be said about how bad ass a big tube amp looks. Nice glass of wine, low lights, glowing tubes, beautiful workmanship, and favorite tunes, for me it doesn't get any better than that, at least not with my clothes on.

I agree with that.  I'd indulge in a big fancy tube amp for that same reason if I had the budget.
 
I just wouldn't go around telling people that they needed to do the same if they just wanted good sound like some people here do.

 

[DarkSleip]

You could have been biased the other way..

Well, I may've been, but how so? I actually expected to hear a difference, I don't think I'm un-biasable, but I didn't really hear a difference even when I tried

 

[sridhar3]

Anything with metal spike feet is an A+ 100% recommendation from me.  If the zombies come, you can stab them in their faces.  I don't know what else I (or anybody else) should ask for out of an amp.

 

[scud80]

Build quality can mean multiple things.  One could mean "resistance to damage" or "visual appeal and craftsmanship".  The former is a lot cheaper to do than the latter for the most part.  I was into watches for a bit, and that entire hobby is about the latter since a quartz watch you get for a dollar is going to be orders of magnitude more accurate than the best mechanical watch ever made.
 
Quote:

One thing that got me thinking was that many people justify buying a >1k$ amp with build quality.

 

 

[scootsit]

I have to be completely honest, my comment is likely entirely off-topic.
 
Currawong, I read a comment you made some pages back regarding the discourse presently, comparing it to scientific discourse. My training is also scientific, though admittedly, you seem far, far more experienced than I. I have myself over the past few days been thinking exactly the same thing: why is there such a cutting and vitriolic undertone? I think that these forums can likely never attain the same academic nature for a variety of reasons.
 
First, at the instant that any individual evaluates a piece of equipment that they themselves own, they sacrifice their objectivity (particularly when the expenditure great and I mean great by a relative, not absolute standard). Any individual owning a piece of equipment that they are evaluating has a conflict of interest.
 
Second, and perhaps more at the heart of the issue is that when we ask about the quality of a product, we are not necessarily all asking the same question. In fact, I would venture to say that we are all asking different questions. A scientific question is by definition testable or one that can be negated. In the audiophile arena, we are frequently not even honest about what our questions in fact are. The question frequently asked: which product is best? is not, scientific in nature. The question of individual enjoyment is by nature individual. I built a friend a Millet Hybrid, I have no question in my mind that it is outperformed from an engineering standpoint by many of the products in this forum. I would gladly challenge any of them however in the enjoyment I got in designing the board from scratch, modifying it to the tastes of the friend, and seeing them enjoy the finished product. The fact of the matter is that this forum, and indeed every forum on here questions the enjoyment of an item.
 
We question, even with A-to-B testing something that by definition cannot be empirically measured. The reason that discourse is not jovial and academic is because the topic at hand is not jovial and academic. It would seem that when questioning which device is "better" we personalize the absolute ridiculousness of the question, while invoking rational arguments. The two are incompatible. Ones enjoyment of a device has very, very little to do with its performance. I think that fact is oft lost in these threads. Were you to give me data regarding the performance of two products, I could tell you statistically and probabilistically how similar or different they were (the robustness of these methods are of course a topic of contentious debate within the scientific community well beyond the scope of this conversation). This neglects two things. First, similar or dissimilar is still entirely relative, and relative to your perception of each device. And second, this difference does not implicitly need to reflect upon your enjoyment of either.
 
Questioning whether a device is better or worse is meaningless without a rigorously defined definition of quality. Without a mathematically defined optimum, we cannot define a device is closer or further from optimum. That said, different devices perform differently with respect to different analyses. There is a fruitful discussion in these specific analyses, selecting the appropriate device is ultimately personal. I think that much of this seems to come out more in the DIY forums. Wherein a builder will come to the forum saying "I'm measuring X on this device, why?", or alternatively "I'm hearing X on this device, why?" This is questioning a specific, measured parameter and its cause, it is not questioning the overall value of an item.
 
Questions like: "I hear more of X on product Y, do you?" are valid. At no point is the inherent value of any item called into question. The result is that there is no need or impetus for personalization. I would love to see technical discussion and debate regarding products, but the inherent need to classify an item as better or worse (which cannot be done) seems to be the nature of the discourse. It is okay to point out the technical failings of a product. But, owners of said product, rest assured, it does not devalue your investment if you own it. This should is not a debate of quantity, but rather of quality, with the understanding that no quality is absolute.
 
I think it would be useful to eliminate the terms "better" and "worse" from our vocabulary and replace them with "more enjoyable for me" and "less enjoyable for me."
 
Any other empirical measurement is just that - and by definition, those cannot be "better" or "worse", just different.
EDIT: I should add that if we come to a rigorously defended, testable definition of ideal - all bets are off (thank goodness that will never happen!), but alas, then we can all go out and buy the single best product!
 
Hope I haven't gone too far off topic or offended anyone. That surely was not my intent. I guess it was just an observation and a thought.
 
Happy listening, folks.

 

[chrislangley4253]

Well, I may've been, but how so? I actually expected to hear a difference, I don't think I'm un-biasable, but I didn't really hear a difference even when I tried

Well, if you expected a difference, nevermind I didn't expect the o2 to compare or sound better than my matrix m stage.. then it did.

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

 
I think it would be useful to eliminate the terms "better" and "worse" from our vocabulary and replace them with "more enjoyable for me" and "less enjoyable for me."
 
 

Read any competently written subjective review where quality audio components are compared and the 'more/less enjoyable for me' wording is a lot more common than absolutes like better/worse. The objectivists would leap on both pronouncements as a classic example of why subjective reviews serve no purpose beyond entertainment, but personally I prefer to see the latter wording. Its interesting that even when one component measures better than another, there are still debates over whether that difference is even audible.
 
I read subjective reviews looking for the aspects of the sound/usability/whatever that did not please the reviewer - I am especially keen to find a few negatives when something is being hyped. When I put that to the board some time back, one of the responses was 'who wants to read reviews of bad gear ?' - by that logic, anything I plug into Google which doesn't have an 'expert' review must be total crap. Conversely, if it got 5 stars over at WHF, I may as well just get my credit card out and order the thing sight unseen ......
 
 
 

 

[LizardKing1]

 
Quote:

I think it would be useful to eliminate the terms "better" and "worse" from our vocabulary and replace them with "more enjoyable for me" and "less enjoyable for me."

 
This is where I stop agreeing. I can understand all the subjectivity behind distinguishing "enjoyable" from "good", but that doesn't render "good" invalid as a term for describing amplifiers, or anything really. An amp is good or bad given a standard evaluation of its measurements and a few other characteristics like build quality, not looking like a brick (more subjectivity!), inputs/outputs, etc. These can be better or worse made (DScope vs soundcard RMAA), and so have different weights. But at least to me, and I know at least a few who agree, how an amp performs defines wether it's good or bad.
 
And then we can like it or not. That's it, really. I can love something with 5%THD and +/-7dB frequency linearity, and it's still a bad amplifier.Rendering "good" and "bad" useless because they don't correlate with enjoyment doesn't make sense, because they aren't meant to.

 

[proton007]

 
Quote:

 
 
This is where I stop agreeing. I can understand all the subjectivity behind distinguishing "enjoyable" from "good", but that doesn't render "good" invalid as a term for describing amplifiers, or anything really. An amp is good or bad given a standard evaluation of its measurements and a few other characteristics like build quality, not looking like a brick (more subjectivity!), inputs/outputs, etc. These can be better or worse made (DScope vs soundcard RMAA), and so have different weights. But at least to me, and I know at least a few who agree, how an amp performs defines wether it's good or bad.
 
And then we can like it or not. That's it, really. I can love something with 5%THD and +/-7dB frequency linearity, and it's still a bad amplifier.Rendering "good" and "bad" useless because they don't correlate with enjoyment doesn't make sense, because they aren't meant to.

Agree. There are tons of people out there who seem to 'enjoy' their music with the apple earbuds. That doesn't make those earbuds 'good'. I haven't even touched mine that came with the iPod.

 

[Magick Man]

Well, if you expected a difference, nevermind I didn't expect the o2 to compare or sound better than my matrix m stage.. then it did.

I suppose I've never understood how there could be big sonic differences between SS headphone amps anyway. There are bad ones, for sure. My E9 is a POS with a high noise floor, but I often cringe when I hear talk about how amps expand sound stage or do other things to sound that just aren't plausible.

 

[proton007]

 
Quote:

I suppose I've never understood how there could be big sonic differences between SS headphone amps anyway. There are bad ones, for sure. My E9 is a POS with a high noise floor, but I often cringe when I hear talk about how amps expand sound stage or do other things to sound that just aren't plausible.

Afaik, spatial interpretation of sound by our brain is affected by the timing and phase differences between the two channels. This is introduced during music production, but is varied by the physical distance of the source from the ears. Hence headphones tend to have wider soundstage. Upto a microsecond can be detected by the brain. Similarly, depth is determined by the relative amplitude of the sound, those lower will sound further away. Sometimes you might experience an increase in audio depth if you listen to lower volumes than usual.
 
So amps that 'improve' soundstage change this timing/phase somehow?

 

[twodeko]

 
Quote:

 
So amps that 'improve' soundstage change this timing/phase somehow?

I always understood that the perceived soundstage is better (wider/more defined) with amplifiers that have minimal crosstalk, since low crosstalk prevents coupling of the two input channels.  This would explain why some amplifiers may have a 'better' soundstage as it all boils down to the amplifier design, PCB layout, and somewhat on the quality of components used.

 

[LizardKing1]

I avoid commenting on this because there's a chance I might just have no idea what I'm talking, but the idea of an amp changing soundstage kind of puzzled me. Soundstage is in itself a perceived effect. That would mean altering the frequency response to include more mid-to-low frequencies from the left channel on the right, and vice-versa, basically a hardware crossfeed. This does not happen by mistake, if an amp would change the channel balance and crossfeed it's stunning how it actually was able to do it exactly in a way that would be interpreted by the human brain as a spacial perception effect. And yet I've read countless report of amps improving soundstage. This would be a good example of how subjective evaluations are flawed, since the chances of an interference being this specific are AFAIK minimal. Of course I might be wrong, so if someone knows how this is possible I'm open to being wrong.