[SonOfMorwen]

Not sure about the cables.

But regarding the mics. The second link you posted is mine and I got better results not using those but using in ear foam plugs. I used a hot glue gun to stick mine to the foam and also cut the foam to a much smaller length so the mics were almost flush with my ear canals. The hot glue can easily be peeled off the mics if not much is used.
The foam didn’t slip as much and mostly stayed in place which I think was important

Hope you get some good measurements and don’t give up after a few tries. I’m still wowed by mine everyday and I did mine around a year ago.

Are you doing it for the surround sound?

Thank you for your reply. Is this the mount you keep at the end https://www.head-fi.org/threads/rec...r-speaker-virtualization.890719/post-16902907 ? If you have time, would it be possible to have more picture of your mount ? Especially to see how much the foam was cut and how you managed with the wires.

Yes, at the beginning my main motivation was to use this for surround, but now I think that it must be very good for stereo too.

Did you try something else than the Primo EM258 ?

 

[morgin]

Thank you for your reply. Is this the mount you keep at the end https://www.head-fi.org/threads/rec...r-speaker-virtualization.890719/post-16902907 ? If you have time, would it be possible to have more picture of your mount ? Especially to see how much the foam was cut and how you managed with the wires.

Yes, at the beginning my main motivation was to use this for surround, but now I think that it must be very good for stereo too.

Did you try something else than the Primo EM258 ?

Yes that’s it. I think these in the pic were the best with taking measurements with. I had to strip some of the wire housing so it was thinner and I could loop it around and out of my ears canal. I can’t take pics because I don’t know where I put the foam but the pic shows the lengths. I guess I all trial and error depending on your ears.

I didn’t try any other mics.

 

[SonOfMorwen]

Thank you for your suggestions. If the hot glue is really easy to remove, I will probably try with foam first.

 

[reter]

Thanks for the reply. Just to be clear my surround works amazingly well. There’s a scene in ford vs Ferrari where the main guy is test driving a car and some blokes are talking. As the camera is focused on the guys talking you can hear the car making its way around the circuit. The distance and actual ability to be able to tell the car is turning a bend after a stretch is unbelievably lifelike.

I’m asking incase there’s little things/settings that I may have overlooked or maybe I’m just so deep in this rabbit hole of perfection that I keep looking for things to improve.

I use mpc hc with lav filters

there's room to improve, the right amp and headphones does a lot in imaging but of course it comes with a price to pay

i switched many amps and i found that the better the amp the better the sound quality
the first thing i did is pairing a lake people g111 mk2 with a schiit multibit 2 and god, the sound scaled so much

the "problem" is that we humans get used to the sound we perceive so we are constantly looking for a way to enhance it

 

[gregorio]

i switched many amps and i found that the better the amp the better the sound quality
the first thing i did is pairing a lake people g111 mk2 with a schiit multibit 2 and god, the sound scaled so much

This is one of the oldest audiophile myths, going back around 40 years or more. Assuming you’re actually using the right amp for the job (sufficient power/impedance) and not an esoteric tube amp (deliberately adding very high levels of distortion) there is no audible difference between them.

The same is true of DACs; the Schitt Multibit is a poorly performing DAC with some relatively serious design flaws compared to other DACs but again, nothing that’s audible under normal/reasonable listening levels.

G

 

[reter]

This is one of the oldest audiophile myths, going back around 40 years or more. Assuming you’re actually using the right amp for the job (sufficient power/impedance) and not an esoteric tube amp (deliberately adding very high levels of distortion) there is no audible difference between them.

The same is true of DACs; the Schitt Multibit is a poorly performing DAC with some relatively serious design flaws compared to other DACs but again, nothing that’s audible under normal/reasonable listening levels.

G

i don't know, when i started using the lake people amp i found better imaging and slightly better soundstage, you can say it's placebo but i remember very well how it was before i tried this amp; i also tried amps like topping which are so muffled that almost completely screw the whole point of doing measurements.

of course the most mandatory part is doing better measurements but i think as headphones changes the way the hrir could be heard, the amp does that as well (in minor part, but it does)

it's my opinion tho

 

[bigshot]

See the link in my sig file to the Stereo Review comparison test of amps. It shows the truth of the matter clearly.

 

[gregorio]

i don't know, when i started using the lake people amp i found better imaging and slightly better soundstage, you can say it's placebo …

Indeed I can “say it’s placebo” or a simple case of failure to accurately volume match when comparing DACs or amps, and I would say it’s one of these because all the reliable evidence going back 40 or so years demonstrates this fact! For example, the famous Carver Challenge, the mentioned study in bigshot’s signature and countless others. Do you have any reliable evidence to support your claim that it is not placebo (or a failure to volume match)?

of course the most mandatory part is doing better measurements

When it comes to amps and DACs, better measurements make no difference. We’ve been able to accurately measure them for several decades and the differences (when volume matched) are below audibility.

but i think as headphones changes the way the hrir could be heard, the amp does that as well (in minor part, but it does)

I’m not disputing that headphones change the perception of imaging/soundstage, I’m disputing that amps and DACs do. The only exceptions are: Some very rare tube amp or NOS DAC designs, a failure to volume match or placebo. Just stating “but it does” is not a valid supporting argument here …

it's my opinion tho

And neither is this. You’re of course entitled to your opinion but that doesn’t affect the fact that your assertion was false, it’s a fallacious argument.

G

 

[reter]

Indeed I can “say it’s placebo” or a simple case of failure to accurately volume match when comparing DACs or amps, and I would say it’s one of these because all the reliable evidence going back 40 or so years demonstrates this fact! For example, the famous Carver Challenge, the mentioned study in bigshot’s signature and countless others. Do you have any reliable evidence to support your claim that it is not placebo (or a failure to volume match)?

When it comes to amps and DACs, better measurements make no difference. We’ve been able to accurately measure them for several decades and the differences (when volume matched) are below audibility.

I’m not disputing that headphones change the perception of imaging/soundstage, I’m disputing that amps and DACs do. The only exceptions are: Some very rare tube amp or NOS DAC designs, a failure to volume match or placebo. Just stating “but it does” is not a valid supporting argument here …

And neither is this. You’re of course entitled to your opinion but that doesn’t affect the fact that your assertion was false, it’s a fallacious argument.

G

say if you're EQing two headphones which apparently should sound the same for the fact that measurements are the same after equalizing, why you're asserting that headphones sounds different?

there are a lot of stuff going on inside a solid state amp, lot of electronics, measurements is not the definitive way to judge things

 

[sander99]

of course the most mandatory part is doing better measurements but i think as headphones changes the way the hrir could be heard, the amp does that as well (in minor part, but it does)

When it comes to amps and DACs, better measurements make no difference. We’ve been able to accurately measure them for several decades and the differences (when volume matched) are below audibility.

I assumed @reter was talking about Impulcifer measurements here. He was talking in the context of getting better speaker virtualisation. Even seeing his last post just now I still think that was his original thought when he posted "of course the most mandatory part is doing better measurements"(@reter?)

say if you're EQing two headphones which apparently should sound the same for the fact that measurements are the same after equalizing, why you're asserting that headphones sounds different?

Measuring headphones is an entirely different thing from measuring DACs and amps. The latter is just about measuring electrical signals, one dimensional scalar values as a function of time, there are absolutely no mysteries there. Measuring headphones is another story, for starters you need another transducer (microphone), and the results depent heavely on the placement of the microphone, and the "environment" (do you put the headphone on a dummy head or something else?) and a 2 mm shift of the headphone or the microphone or something else in the setup can change the measurement results by a magnitude 100000 times as much as the smallest deviation that can be measured in electrical signals! And there we have exactly one reason why the imperfections of Impulcifer measurements are the weak link, and the influence of DACs and amps should normally be completely neglectable compared to that.)

 

[ThanatosVI]

say if you're EQing two headphones which apparently should sound the same for the fact that measurements are the same after equalizing, why you're asserting that headphones sounds different?

Two headphones will never sound exactly the same after EQ.
This is more of a theoretical example.

Maybe when you try to eliminate unit variation with EQ but probably it will still be slightly different afterwards

 

[Joe Bloggs]

say if you're EQing two headphones which apparently should sound the same for the fact that measurements are the same after equalizing, why you're asserting that headphones sounds different?

there are a lot of stuff going on inside a solid state amp, lot of electronics, measurements is not the definitive way to judge things

Two different headphones have different acoustics in that if you equalized them to sound the same going into a coupler, they will still sound different going into your (or anyone's) actual ears.

 

[gregorio]

say if you're EQing two headphones which apparently should sound the same for the fact that measurements are the same after equalizing, why you're asserting that headphones sounds different?

In addition to what’s already been stated by others, EQ just affects the frequency response. So, how does EQ make the transient response, self-noise, distortion, etc., the same as these measurements?

there are a lot of stuff going on inside a solid state amp, lot of electronics, measurements is not the definitive way to judge things

Of course it is, what do you think is going on inside solid state amps and DACs if they’re not operating on frequencies or amplitudes? There’s no sound or human perception of it inside a DAC or amp.

Just because there are audible differences between HPs, doesn’t mean there are audible differences between amps and DACs. For starters HPs are electro-mechanical devices, so they have to deal with the physics of friction, inertia, physical soundwaves, etc. Solid state devices by definition obviously don’t.

I notice that you couldn’t answer the question: “Do you have any reliable evidence to support your claim that it is not placebo (or a failure to volume match)?” - So why are you still arguing?

G

 

[reter]

I assumed @reter was talking about Impulcifer measurements here. He was talking in the context of getting better speaker virtualisation. Even seeing his last post just now I still think that was his original thought when he posted "of course the most mandatory part is doing better measurements"(@reter?)

yeah, i was referring to impulcifer

In addition to what’s already been stated by others, EQ just affects the frequency response. So, how does EQ make the transient response, self-noise, distortion, etc., the same as these measurements?

Of course it is, what do you think is going on inside solid state amps and DACs if they’re not operating on frequencies or amplitudes? There’s no sound or human perception of it inside a DAC or amp.

So i think what i'm hearing is distorsion because i doubt the two amps i have measures equal, sorry but i don't have proof of what i'm hearing, i just hear somehow different, i'm sure you will not trust my words but that's what i think

again, recording with impulcifer in a very good treated room does a whole lot compared to only switching amps, i'm sure of that, i'm not saying that the latter is a gamechanger the same way is impulcifer itself, it's more of a complement

 

[sander99]

i'm sure you will not trust my words but that's what i think

He will believe what you think you hear, the point is that almost certainly what you think you hear is not what you really hear.
From what I see in your post history you haven't been around much in the sound science forum except for the Impulcifer thread, so I assume this must be a sort of culture shock for you, sorry about that. Placebo is real, and very strong. Unfortunately we are not really allowed to discuss these and other facts outside the sound science forum.