Objective2 Mini-Review and Discussion

[estreeter]

Headfonia Mike has clearly been biding his time before taking a swipe at Voldemort:
 
http://www.headfonia.com/nwavguys-objective-2-by-jdslabs-and-epiphany-acoustics/4/
 
I expect that has been posted elsewhere, but I found it odd that he has an issue with the bass impact on the O2 - I don't, but the mids on the O2 just don't float my boat (thats going straight from the headphone out on my T51 to the O2 via the line-out on said portable player - same from my MSII). The rest is Mike's usual combination of typos and mangled English - I expect that the Objectivists will enjoy it.  

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

building a device with a well known and easily definable ideal performance.  

 

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

 
First off, though I may disagree with some of the folks here on certain things don't assume I'm directing any particular comments at you personally.  Those whom I've talked to should know that straight away.  For some others, this isn't the case.
 
Lol, CAD was actually very much a 'thing' 20 years ago.  But you don't want to go there w/ F1 or any thing automotive related and do this dance with me, believe me.  PM me and we can discuss inverted aerofoil heatpumps all day long.  I only mention it as the head Objectivist likes to display his limited grasp on the subject quite frequently.  I hear it's watches these days.  

  Either way, physics is the same then and now for cars and audio, that was the point irrespective of technical progress.  For some reason many of the audio 'objectivists' here don't seem to believe in progress and further research like most scientists in the real world.  Likely a combination of internet armchair quarterbacks who have never spent time in a laboratory before and EE's that spend more time implementing known designs rather than conducting research.  There isn't a true scientist in the world that would strut around like some here do.   

Consider the false premise that because we have mechanical and electronic gear that can measure beyond certain audible limits that many people here seem to take that to mean that this same measurement gear accounts for everything the ear and brain hears or perceives.  Sloppy logic. That's an assumption many here make that you seem to have made as well.  The O2 displays ideal performance under the metrics established and accepted by many here.  Yet, with performance defined as ultimate transparency and wire w/ gain, the performance still falls short of other amps cheaper, equal to or more expensive than it though it does exceed many 'bad' or worse amps.  I'm not going to repeat which amps as those that bother reading will likely know which I refer to already and those that don't bother reading, for whatever reason, aren't worth repeating for.  Clean power delivery is superb for the price and size of the O2.  Transparency is only okay though and only great if compared to poor amps as reference.  Transparency being the ability to render or let whatever is on the recording or source pass through.  Despite the 'ideal' measurements clung to here, the O2 does not meet or exceed the best amps available and still leaves out some information on the recording.  So maybe somebody should ask why and figure it out rather than resting on false laurels and the illusion of epistemological omniscience. 
 
While we're at it, let's examine two things.  First, V claims the O2 in not discernible from the DAC1 from his tests.  Let's see the Youtube video of him and Nick Charles conducting his own challenge to support his claim.  A claim which is basically a summation of all his claims and work thus far.  He can submit his transducer, source and track choice to me or purrin for approval as well as Nick Charles' methodology to ensure listener familiarity and listening fatigue reduction protocols.  He can even keep his money in his pocket or donate it regardless of his own challenge and its outcome.
 
Second, I'd like V to ask the designer of the Benchmark DAC1 whether he thinks the O2 sounds exactly like the DAC1 HO.  If not, why?  What did V do wrong that his measurements failed to account for?  If it does, then how does he explain V meeting his products performance for so much less than his likely costs and market price?  With the ODAC and O2 being perfect wire w/ gain and transparent beyond audible limits, why would anyone want or need a DAC1?  I'd tune in to the blog for that interview.
 

 
 
 

 

[Ultrainferno]

@estreeter: This was posted a few pages back and triggered a whole bunch of useless criticism and sound discussion. thanks for bumping that

 

[hekeli]

It's ridiculous that Headphonia doesn't know O2 will clip using high gain (6.5x) on normal sources. Or they just "conveniently ignore" the fact..

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

@estreeter: This was posted a few pages back and triggered a whole bunch of useless criticism and sound discussion. thanks for bumping that

I do what I can to make the life of my fellow Head-Fiers tedious.  

 
I know - should have read the thread - but there have been sooooo many threads/posts on the O2 that I've given up. Its clearly a religious icon, and we all know  how that goes. 
 

 

[DarkSleip]

Quote:

 

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

 
First off, though I may disagree with some of the folks here on certain things don't assume I'm directing any particular comments at you personally.  Those whom I've talked to should know that straight away.  For some others, this isn't the case.
 
Lol, CAD was actually very much a 'thing' 20 years ago.  But you don't want to go there w/ F1 or any thing automotive related and do this dance with me, believe me.  PM me and we can discuss inverted aerofoil heatpumps all day long.  I only mention it as the head Objectivist likes to display his limited grasp on the subject quite frequently.  I hear it's watches these days.  

  Either way, physics is the same then and now for cars and audio, that was the point irrespective of technical progress.  For some reason many of the audio 'objectivists' here don't seem to believe in progress and further research like most scientists in the real world.  Likely a combination of internet armchair quarterbacks who have never spent time in a laboratory before and EE's that spend more time implementing known designs rather than conducting research.  There isn't a true scientist in the world that would strut around like some here do.   

Consider the false premise that because we have mechanical and electronic gear that can measure beyond certain audible limits that many people here seem to take that to mean that this same measurement gear accounts for everything the ear and brain hears or perceives.  Sloppy logic. That's an assumption many here make that you seem to have made as well.  The O2 displays ideal performance under the metrics established and accepted by many here.  Yet, with performance defined as ultimate transparency and wire w/ gain, the performance still falls short of other amps cheaper, equal to or more expensive than it though it does exceed many 'bad' or worse amps.  I'm not going to repeat which amps as those that bother reading will likely know which I refer to already and those that don't bother reading, for whatever reason, aren't worth repeating for.  Clean power delivery is superb for the price and size of the O2.  Transparency is only okay though and only great if compared to poor amps as reference.  Transparency being the ability to render or let whatever is on the recording or source pass through.  Despite the 'ideal' measurements clung to here, the O2 does not meet or exceed the best amps available and still leaves out some information on the recording.  So maybe somebody should ask why and figure it out rather than resting on false laurels and the illusion of epistemological omniscience. 
 
While we're at it, let's examine two things.  First, V claims the O2 in not discernible from the DAC1 from his tests.  Let's see the Youtube video of him and Nick Charles conducting his own challenge to support his claim.  A claim which is basically a summation of all his claims and work thus far.  He can submit his transducer, source and track choice to me or purrin for approval as well as Nick Charles' methodology to ensure listener familiarity and listening fatigue reduction protocols.  He can even keep his money in his pocket or donate it regardless of his own challenge and its outcome.
 
Second, I'd like V to ask the designer of the Benchmark DAC1 whether he thinks the O2 sounds exactly like the DAC1 HO.  If not, why?  What did V do wrong that his measurements failed to account for?  If it does, then how does he explain V meeting his products performance for so much less than his likely costs and market price?  With the ODAC and O2 being perfect wire w/ gain and transparent beyond audible limits, why would anyone want or need a DAC1?  I'd tune in to the blog for that interview.
 

 
 
 

People would need a DAC1 for measurement purposes, people would want a DAC1 for pride or biased feelings. Why do they sell esoteric cables? because most people simply can't believe an adequate gauge lamp cord (for impedance issues) with a capacitance neutral amp (some amps are affected by cable capacitance) can couple with some of the finest speakers/headphones available (B&W diamond series, LCD-2, hd800 etc.). The same happens with all gear in the audio industry, when there are smaller price differences people can accept that the cheaper piece of gear may sound better (or the same). But suggestion is unavoidable, unless you didn't know which is which. That's the reason of ABX blind tests. V has already discussed that issue in his objective vs. subjective debate. As a conclusion: for objective rating use measurements, for real life performance rating use blind testing. And I've not seen that anybody on a blind test differentiate an O2 from a measurably better amp, no matter how high the price difference.

 

[estreeter]

I wish I could be as sure of winning Lotto as I am that I could tell the difference between my EHP-02 and my E9 in a blind test within 5-10 seconds of any track I own. Bring it on. 

 

[mikeaj]

E9 also has a much higher noise floor, detectable with some headphones and listening environments for sure.  If you can do it with like Beyerdynamic DT 880 600 ohms with the volume level matched (level matched while loaded with the headphones, or else the volumes while loaded will be different because of the amount lost across the output impedance), then I'd be more impressed.  Something like that has a high enough impedance to not really be impacted by using the E9, though other picks should be fine too.  Do people even understand what all of the assumed conditions are?
 
If you put a buffer after the E9 then it's not really the E9 you're listening to, quite arguably.
 
Anyway, if anybody wants to set that up, start another thread.  It's clear that the powers that be prefer these related side topics discussed outside of amplifier subforums.

 

[dookie]

hi. 
first time poster. I just finished soldering a pair of kits last week. 
I found that as a first DIY kit it was very easy to stuff and solder.took me about 8 hours to get both done and tested.(i know.. but it was my first attempt at soldering) great detail was put forth on how to build and test the finished kit. almost felt as easy as paint by numbers. tips were given for almost every step. i really appreciated how alternates were written in -helped me since a few default parts were on hella long back order. 
 
when the the smoke of testing cleared - smoke from my ears not the amp, remember i'm new to this DIY stuff- i took the amps out for a spin. plugged in the trusty inspire 4g(running ics) and played some music on my denon dn-hp700. it sounded just like the phone just louder but i guess thats why i built it. plugged it into the computer(asrock e350-m1 on board soundcard) and same thing sounded just like the pc but louder. in my use it hasn't taken anything out and has put in more volume. not bad for the monies spent. wish i could afford the more pricey amps to give a comparison but my music entertainment budget was limited to ~$60us. thanks to many youtube videos on how-to solder i dont foresee having to replace these amps. but if someone would like to send me a demo model.. j/k.
 
 
p.s. both the headphones and the amp were purchased with advice given here. i believe i got the most bang for my dollars spent.. so a grateful thank you to the community. 

 

[uelover]

The claim that measurement is everything is a subjective claim because no one can determine its validity.
 
I would hope that those who take pride in measurement will stop thinking that they are making objective claims (claims that are the 'truth') and dismiss everything else that cannot be measured as bluffs because this very action is simply a display of their own pride and ego.

 

[LizardKing1]

 
Quote:

Headfonia Mike has clearly been biding his time before taking a swipe at Voldemort:
 
http://www.headfonia.com/nwavguys-objective-2-by-jdslabs-and-epiphany-acoustics/4/
 
I expect that has been posted elsewhere, but I found it odd that he has an issue with the bass impact on the O2 - I don't, but the mids on the O2 just don't float my boat (thats going straight from the headphone out on my T51 to the O2 via the line-out on said portable player - same from my MSII). The rest is Mike's usual combination of typos and mangled English - I expect that the Objectivists will enjoy it.  

I don't know what emotion to have, so I just mixed a bunch of them into a weird distended face.
 
 

“It is nevertheless possible to have a product that measures well but doesn’t sound so good. It is still a mystery as to how this could be, but there it is." 

 
No mistery, it's called enjoying a colored frequency response. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a preference. What is wrong is to assume that what sounds to good to Mr. Nelson Pass qualifies as the dogmatic reference for good sound.
 
 

You can have a good neutral bass presentation like the O2, but with a stronger impact when the music calls for it 

Uhm no. No, you can't. What does "when the music calls for it" even mean? The amp guesses that at that moment the user wants more impact and has a microsecond-conversation with the source, convincing it to output a bit more into the mid-low frequencies? It might be a definition thing, since what I consider to be "impact" is indeed a frequency response effect, a boost around 200Hz, along with a very crisp detailed sound to actually give you the impression of the beginning and end of a beat.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

 
 
Uhm no. No, you can't. What does "when the music calls for it" even mean? The amp guesses that at that moment the user wants more impact and has a microsecond-conversation with the source, convincing it to output a bit more into the mid-low frequencies?

You have to admit that would be pretty awesome.

 

[LizardKing1]

 
Quote:

You have to admit that would be pretty awesome.

What would happen if a german Schiit Asgard tried to ask a Chinese Fiio E10 for more power? Through an American Moon Audio cable?
Jitter.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

 
Consider the false premise that because we have mechanical and electronic gear that can measure beyond certain audible limits that many people here seem to take that to mean that this same measurement gear accounts for everything the ear and brain hears or perceives.  Sloppy logic.
 
 
 

Disagree.
 

 

[estreeter]

Subjectivism is fine. Objectivism is fine. Zealotry, not fine. 

.