[RONJA MESCO]

Keeping this useful thread going, you never know, @IEMusic may be quietly reading it.

My question is, why is a DAC/Amp referred to as a "source", when in fact they are next in the audio chain from the source?

DAC/Amps do not hold the data (physical (does not require a DAC, I know) or electronic).

Just a random thought.

thank you for this...this never made any sense

 

[Death_Block]

My take is the source varies on all setups. Otherwise it wouldn't matter. It's the beginning of your listing adventures that is modified to your taste. That's all I could be bothered about how to explain what I mean. It's 2am lol

 

[ChrisOc]

My take is the source varies on all setups. Otherwise it wouldn't matter. It's the beginning of your listing adventures that is modified to your taste. That's all I could be bothered about how to explain what I mean. It's 2am lol

It is almost 5am, I am dealing with my insomnia by listening to calm music but then I ended up on Head-fi.....help!

I presume you meant "begining of your listing listening....". Set that typo (if it is a typo) aside for a moment, my difficulty is that, an electrician once said to me, "to find the problem begin at the source". It makes a lot of sense to go to the plug on the wall and check the fuse before you go tinkering anywhere else.

In relation to audio, why would the initial "signal", as @ehjie used the technical term, begin from anywhere other than the source, before conversion and before amplification?

For me that source is the turntable, cassette player, reel to reel, CD player, streamer.....not the converter (DAC) or the amplifier which process the signal they receive from the source.

 

[GREQ]

For me that source is the turntable, cassette player, reel to reel, CD player, streamer.....not the converter (DAC) or the amplifier which process the signal they receive from the source.

Although, a CD player also has an internal DAC to convert the 1s and 0s it reads off the CD into an analogue signal.

And technically DACs don't process signals, they create them. Unless you include DSP that some perform.
And amps 'signal processing' is a passive process that only causes signal degradation, for me that would be difficult to describe that as actual processing.

Maybe I'm overthinking it...
There are certainly exceptions to each 'rule.'

 

[ChrisOc]

Are we looking for status or sound quality when we buy kilobuck audio gear?

Some earphones and headphones cost more than some (mainly used) cars but does it take that much Research and Development (R&D) to get "high-end" sound quality. Even if we consider the cost of R&D, materials and manufacturing processes, relative to the numbers of cars sold compared to audio gear, does it justify the actual price of some audio gear? Maybe it does (justify the cost) but I would argue the value is primarily from the status point of view, rather than on the sound quality.

As we are all aiming for the best sound quality we can afford, ultimately, it could be a question of what we can afford as individuals, nothing to do with value.

 

[GREQ]

Are we looking for status or sound quality when we buy kilobuck audio gear?

Some earphones and headphones cost more than some (mainly used) cars but does it take that much Research and Development (R&D) to get "high-end" sound quality. Even if we consider the cost of R&D, materials and manufacturing processes, relative to the numbers of cars sold compared to audio gear, does it justify the actual price of some audio gear? Maybe it does (justify the cost) but I would argue the value is primarily from the status point of view, rather than on the sound quality.

As we are all aiming for the best sound quality we can afford, ultimately, it could be a question of what we can afford as individuals, nothing to do with value.

I think when someone reaches the point after having auditioned many hundreds of headphones, and many of the $1K+ headphones around, then it quickly becomes clear that you don't like most headphones at any price point (subjective).

If money was no object, there are VERY few headphones I've heard above $1K I would personally consider owning.
The only one I REALLY enjoyed that springs to mind is the Sennheiser HE-1 - but that did actually have a considerable leap in sound quality, whereas some $1K+ headphones were only incrementally 'better' than the $400-800 range.

Objectively very often, so-called 'high end' headphones make a jump forward in one area of sound reproduction, while sacrificing multiple others (resolution, tuning, soundstage, imaging etc)

Probably depends who you ask, but it's fairly well established at this point that to develop an objectively good headphone does take considerable R&D and good design.
And the price/value just comes down to 'is it worth it TO YOU' - which is the reason why I mostly bought 2nd hand or vintage headphones... historically speaking, I own 5 'flagship' headphones, but most people today wouldn't give them a 2nd look, maybe not even a 1st look - but the kind of sound and enjoyment they give me was well worth the relatively little money I spent on them.
That's not to say I don't enjoy owning some rare vintage models... kind of like the 'status' one might feel about owning a certain vintage car?? I can only guess.

Normally I might say "as long as you're having fun, that's the main thing, right?"... but as long as people keep buying 'status' level headphones for exorbitant prices, the makers will keep bringing even more expensiver, newerer, betterer, headphones to market - which I'm aware is a considerable gripe of the masses - however we are still enjoying a sort of headphone-rennaisance that is bringing some absolutley stunning headphones into the 'low-fi/mid-fi' (urghghg... I hate that phrase/concept) market.

I think I agree and disagree with both sides of this coin.

 

[ChrisOc]

I think when someone reaches the point after having auditioned many hundreds of headphones, and many of the $1K+ headphones around, then it quickly becomes clear that you don't like most headphones at any price point (subjective).

If money was no object, there are VERY few headphones I've heard above $1K I would personally consider owning.
The only one I REALLY enjoyed that springs to mind is the Sennheiser HE-1 - but that did actually have a considerable leap in sound quality, whereas some $1K+ headphones were only incrementally 'better' than the $400-800 range.

Objectively very often, so-called 'high end' headphones make a jump forward in one area of sound reproduction, while sacrificing multiple others (resolution, tuning, soundstage, imaging etc)

Probably depends who you ask, but it's fairly well established at this point that to develop an objectively good headphone does take considerable R&D and good design.
And the price/value just comes down to 'is it worth it TO YOU' - which is the reason why I mostly bought 2nd hand or vintage headphones... historically speaking, I own 5 'flagship' headphones, but most people today wouldn't give them a 2nd look, maybe not even a 1st look - but the kind of sound and enjoyment they give me was well worth the relatively little money I spent on them.
That's not to say I don't enjoy owning some rare vintage models... kind of like the 'status' one might feel about owning a certain vintage car?? I can only guess.

Normally I might say "as long as you're having fun, that's the main thing, right?"... but as long as people keep buying 'status' level headphones for exorbitant prices, the makers will keep bringing even more expensiver, newerer, betterer, headphones to market - which I'm aware is a considerable gripe of the masses - however we are still enjoying a sort of headphone-rennaisance that is bringing some absolutley stunning headphones into the 'low-fi/mid-fi' (urghghg... I hate that phrase/concept) market.

I think I agree and disagree with both sides of this coin.

Fascinating to hear your extensive experience, much of which I agree with, and above all it is the enjoyment of the gear that matters most to me.

I joined Head-Fi, because I wanted to find out what other opinions were on the original TRI I3s because I disagreed with the opinion of a particular reviewer on the I3s.

In the last few months, with so many Planar Magnetic sets being released, I went back to the I3s and realised that despite acquiring many earphones, some Planar sets, the I3s are one of my favourite earphones (as always, this is entirely subjective) despite acquiring other dearer sets, not for status, but to explore what they bring to the table. I have to agree with you the perfect set may never exist, each falls short on something.

 

[earmonger]

The Tri I3 are special. It is a mystery to me why Tri discontinued and replaced them.

As for kilobuck phones, some of it is about fancier materials and elaborate exterior workmanship, which do add to cost but not necessarily to SQ.

 

[ChrisOc]

The Tri I3 are special. It is a mystery to me why Tri discontinued and replaced them.

As for kilobuck phones, some of it is about fancier materials and elaborate exterior workmanship, which do add to cost but not necessarily to SQ.

I am not sure why the original I3s were replaced, but I it may have something to do with the fact that the change from MMCX to two-pin caused some QC issues, so a redesign was necessary. Although it could have simply been a refresh to make it current. Having said that there is not much difference between the two versions.

I get the fact that novel materials may cost more money but generally the materials were made in another industry, aviation, armaments, space etc.

Novel materials are therefore new in the audio industry but were previously used elsewhere and may be a bit costly, but do you think some of it (the use of exotic materials) is marketing with price hike to boot?

 

[cirrus101]

New random audio thought!:

At what point does hi-fi become hi-fi?
Where exactly is the borderline from 'mid-fi' to hi-fi?

For instance, I was considering this old outdated sound card:

It has a Cirrus Logic CS4281-CM chip in it.
I am a fan of Cirrus' sound and tone, however, this is clearly a (mass) consumer-targeted product - using a chip from a big name brand who does make hi-fi level components.

So, how can we grade the quality of such sound cards?

 

[Death_Block]

I always thought hi-res tag was determined by the decoding capabilities, not by 'good sounding like'. If that makes any sense.

 

[cirrus101]

I always thought hi-res tag was determined by the decoding capabilities, not by 'good sounding like'. If that makes any sense.

Surely it is so, too... but suppose we're comparing two devices playing a 16 bit 44.1khz audio file at these same specs on both; which sounds better? should they sound any better than the other? and if they do, can either be more 'hi-fi' than the other?

 

[jonathan c]

• I’ll give it a go: ‘high fidelity’ is a matter of design intent - where the goal is for audio components to exhibit high fidelity. (To what? That is a separate issue!)
• Audio component design, for the most part, involves cost / engineering compromises. ‘Mid-fi’ is at the nexus of these compromises. A ‘mid-fi’ audio component does not always have middling / satisfactory sound quality. There is more than one way to address an issue, and imaginative / skilled engineers may produce gear that “punches well above its weight class” - despite a targeted mid-price. ‘High-end’ embodies a ne plus ultra mode of thinking where the best possible sound is sought - often on a cost-no-object basis.

 

[baskingshark]

New random audio thought!:

At what point does hi-fi become hi-fi?
Where exactly is the borderline from 'mid-fi' to hi-fi?

For instance, I was considering this old outdated sound card:

It has a Cirrus Logic CS4281-CM chip in it.
I am a fan of Cirrus' sound and tone, however, this is clearly a (mass) consumer-targeted product - using a chip from a big name brand who does make hi-fi level components.

So, how can we grade the quality of such sound cards?

Supposedly something qualifies to be "HIFI" when manufacturers paste a lame HI Res sticker on their gear haha.

Apparently manufacturers can game and pay their way to qualify for this sticker: https://www.jas-audio.or.jp/english/hi-res-logo-en


So they must fulfil some criteria:

<Analogue process>

• (1) Microphone response performance: 40 kHz or above during recording
• (2) Amplification performance: 40 kHz or above
• (3) Speaker and headphone performance: 40 kHz or above

<Digital process>

• (1) Recording format: Capability of recording using the 96kHz/24bit format or above
• (2) I/O (Interface): Input/output interface with the performance of 96kHz/24bit or above
• (3) Decoding: File playability of 96kHz/24bit or above (FLAC and WAV both required)
  (In case of self-recording equipment, FLAC or WAV file is required as minimum condition)
• (4) Digital Signal Processing: DSP processing of 96kHz/24bit or above
• (5) D/A conversion: Digital to analog conversion processing of 96 kHz/24 bits or above

Haha but gaming measurements and having stellar numbers doesn't really equate to good sound of course, so most important is to trust your ears. Different folks also have different comfort levels for budget they can allocate to buy audio gear, from budget all the way to TOTL stuff, so as long as it sounds good and is within your budget, that's more important!

 

[Death_Block]

People are well aware of high end good in all facets, but when it comes to audio, it's a product that is so under marketed. No-one I know is aware of this market and settle for the consumer stuff that gets shoved in their faces. They all think I'm stupid lol. It's a shame, music can be sooo much more enjoyable.