[pinnahertz]

  Fact or fiction?

http://www.head-fi.org/t/748067/official-schiit-magni-modi-2-uber-thread/2340#post_13364889

It's fact that people are posting their subjective opinions.

 

[StanD]

  It's fact that people are posting their subjective opinions.

I think the fact is that many people hear what they want to. Sometimes that could be subjective + deceptive.

 

[U-3C]

Basically the Schiit stack is often seen as the best value setup, where you will see the biggest jump and afterwards, you will see only very little improvement even if you spend big bucks (something that most people agree on), and you are telling me that you can only notice a small improvement over the dreaded on-board audio of a cell phone...something most people have in their pockets (yes, not all onboard audio are equal, I know, but still, purple usually mock flagship cellphones all the time)? 0w0

Even if it isn't placebo or subjective preference. Even if it is objectively superior... It's only by a little bit. That giant stack is just possibly a little better than your tiny cellphone. And what about all those countless better (it slightly worse) amps out there that are actually noisy as hell? I paid a hundred bucks plus shipping hoping for a clear upgrade from my on-board, only to get noisier sound and lower battery life because the company had to stick a class A amp inside for marketing purposes. Because class A apparently equals clean.

And of course, we all know about how biases can get involved to make that "small difference" highly exaggerated so that's a whole new can of worms.

 

[Argyris]

I wonder if the "more money = better" line of thinking applies to the ostensibly crappy built in sound on computers. For instance, would people claim that my 13-inch rMBP sounds better than my Chromebook 15, a computer that cost about a grand less than the former? I can't hear a difference, because of course there isn't one (there's probably a maximum volume difference, but if so I can't even recall which it favors), but I wonder what the consensus among subjectiphiles would be. Surely they'd say the Mac was better, while immediately qualifying that statement by saying that a standalone amp would offer a substantial improvement in sound over either.
 
BTW, I'm not arguing that a separate amp wouldn't offer higher maximum output--for both machines even with the volume turned up to max the onboard audio isn't quite loud enough for some of my classical collection.

 

[LazyListener]

@Argyris  There are no pure objectivists or pure "subjectiphiles" as you put it.  When it comes to hearing, or really any human perception, it is inherently subjective.  Some people are more influenced by things that have absolutely nothing to do with the hearing, like price or appearance, while others are less influenced by such factors.
 
To answer your question, not everyone will say your MBP sounds better than the Chromebook.  Some will be influenced by the price difference, others no so much.
 
For me personally, if the internals were the same, and I did an A/B sited test, volume matched, I would probably initially think I didn't hear a difference, but if I kept listening, may convince myself that maybe, just maybe the MBP sounds better.  I wouldn't be sure.  At worst, I'd say it's a small difference, not worth the price difference.

 

[LazyListener]

Basically the Schiit stack is often seen as the best value setup, where you will see the biggest jump and afterwards, you will see only very little improvement even if you spend big bucks (something that most people agree on), and you are telling me that you can only notice a small improvement over the dreaded on-board audio of a cell phone...something most people have in their pockets (yes, not all onboard audio are equal, I know, but still, purple usually mock flagship cellphones all the time)? 0w0

Even if it isn't placebo or subjective preference. Even if it is objectively superior... It's only by a little bit. That giant stack is just possibly a little better than your tiny cellphone. And what about all those countless better (it slightly worse) amps out there that are actually noisy as hell?

I paid a hundred bucks plus shipping hoping for a clear upgrade from my on-board, only to get noisier sound and lower battery life because the company had to stick a class A amp inside for marketing purposes. Because class A apparently equals clean.

And of course, we all know about how biases can get involved to make that "small difference" highly exaggerated so that's a whole new can of worms.

I'm assuming by "objectively" you mean that which can be measured with instrumentation?
 
Define "little."  Little is a value judgement, inherently subjective.  What you consider little, I may think is a lot.  To know what little is we must know what "a lot" is.  Also, what may appear little in objective measurements may translate to a lot in terms of the perceived sound.

 

[castleofargh]

it's funny because last time I tried to explain the objective/subjective audio nightmare to a friend, what he got out of my description was that objectivists were the only ones to care about subjectivity. and I was like

 

[StanD]

Upon occasion I've brought along my Schiit Asgard 2 and an A/B switch to a friend's place to compare with their mega buck amp, most often a tube amp, you know the diehard audiophile tube type. For those that are not aware, the Asgard 2 is a well designed DC coupled Class A SS Amp that sells new for a mere $250. Put that in a cute wooden case and it could easily sell for 4 or more times the price. Upon more than one occasion we were easily able to pick out the expensive tube amp, when playing loudly. During a quiet passage or pause, you could hear the noise of the tube amp. Oops. One time when asked what they could do about it, I recommended two courses of action, replace the amp with SS Amp, or after tapping a tube and hearing the microphonic crash, I said, "Replace the tube." I usually get to hear the proclamation, "But...but..it's supposed to be the best amp, TOTL."

 

[mindbomb]

Although it certainly isn't a tube amp, idk if the asgard line is the greatest representative of objectivism. It is single ended instead of push pull, so it doesn't have the even harmonic distortion cancellation. It is also has no negative feedback. These are subjectivist impulses, right?

 

[StanD]

  Although it certainly isn't a tube amp, idk if the asgard line is the greatest representative of objectivism. It is single ended instead of push pull, so it doesn't have the even harmonic distortion cancellation. It is also has no negative feedback. These are subjectivist impulses, right?

I think the below specs are well below the human threshold of detectable distortion. One doesn't need tons of negative feedback to compensate for a sloppy design if the circuits are biased properly. There is a small amount of negative feedback in this amp. I like this amp because of the careful design and it can keep your hands warm in the winter.
 
Frequency Response: 20Hz-20Khz, -0.1db, 2Hz-400KHz, -3dB
THD: Less than 0.008%, 20Hz-20KHz, at 1V RMS, high gain mode (worst case)
IMD: Less than 0.010%, CCIF at 1V RMS, high gain mode (worst case)
SNR: More than 102db, unweighted, referenced to 1V RMS, in low gain mode

 

[StanD]

Here we go again, plastic fantastic. This brings up visions of making an Aluminum foil hat to shield my thoughts from aliens. I'll not argue with his response as it would probably go nowhere, I said my piece and hope the layperson gets the point.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/628254/fiio-e18/2280#post_13388961

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

  I think the below specs are well below the human threshold of detectable distortion.

 
Matter of "detectable distortions" or more common term "threshold of audiobility" is most sophisticated in audio.
 
Little example. When we say that ultrasound is inaudible, we see can results of researches of brain activity on ultrasound.
 
And we don't know exactly give the brain activity real sound chnges or not.

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
Matter of "detectable distortions" or more common term "threshold of audiobility" is most sophisticated in audio.
 
Little example. When we say that ultrasound is inaudible, we see can results of researches of brain activity on ultrasound.
 
And we don't know exactly give the brain activity real sound chnges or not.

 
There is a lot of controversy surrounding this study, and scientists have failed to reproduce these results.
 
https://web.archive.org/web/20120626185652/http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/labnote/lab486.html
 
http://www.hificritic.com/uploads/2/8/8/0/28808909/classic-sc10-do_we_need_an_ultrasonic_bandwidth.pdf

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

Sonitus Mirus,
 
Thank you for links. I will read it.

 

[StanD]

   
Matter of "detectable distortions" or more common term "threshold of audiobility" is most sophisticated in audio.
 
Little example. When we say that ultrasound is inaudible, we see can results of researches of brain activity on ultrasound.
 
And we don't know exactly give the brain activity real sound chnges or not.

I sure that given enough SPL a person will perceive ultrasonics, but not in a musical sense, more like due physical damage and discomfort. I think our application is for musical enjoyment not harmful effects. I have never seen a credible reproducible scientific study proving any musical application. I bundle ultrasonic perception in the category of magical cables and other audio mythology.