[moriez]

Trust your own ears. What you can hear you can hear. But be aware that you hear what you want to hear. You can't just "try for yourself" without rigging up a proper test to rule out expectation.

This is what it comes down to. Always. Point made and taken.

People may not be too receptive because like elitico is saying that subject is ''here we go again'' with a tendency to go from off-topic to nowhere. You might want to check out the Sound Science sub forum.

 

[KukoCL]

EQ-wise, I'm using the AutoEQ preset for my cans to align them to the Harman Target Curve and I'm enjoying that a lot.

Appreciate not everyone's going to like the Harman Target Curve (although it seems to draw the appreciation of most), but it sounds very pleasant to me—more so than my cans do when not EQ'd. It's free of charge and easy to try, so I would certainly recommend it at least as a starting point.

Is this one?, Is costs $50 bucks:
https://abletunes.com/product/plugins/eq-wise/

 

[ev666il]

Ahah, I had no idea a plugin called EQ-wise existed—by "EQ-wise" I meant "in terms of EQ"

As mentioned, I'm using HeSuVi to apply EQ. The presets from AutoEQ can be found here, alongside a readme with instructions on how to make them work.

 

[sehnsucht]

 

[ev666il]

But how can we tell whether an amp is neutral and, if not, in which direction it is skewed? I don't trust my own ears that much (but I'm like that: I always need some external, objective standard to adhere to for my peace of mind.)

 

[sehnsucht]

 

[Jason Stoddard]

We can't properly, without measurements, and i've not seen any for the asgard 3. For now i'll see what the headphone eq sounds like (comparing with my hd595 and wh ch700n using entirely different sources so i can switch between them quickly) and then "season to taste" ! Not very scientific, I admit.

Actually, there are measurements up on our site, on the Specs page: https://www.schiit.com/public/upload/PDF/Schiit Amp APx555 Standard Test Suite_ Asgard 3.pdf

Here's the problem: by measurements, every amp is neutral. There will literally be no significant frequency response variations in any modern amplifier (though tube amps with higher output impedances may interact with drivers that have varying impedance, causing frequency response variations.) Also, most amps will perform significantly better than the transducer they are connected to in terms of THD—Audeze quotes 0.1%, 0r -60dB, and the KEF LS50s are -48dB from 170 Hz-20Khz (which is very good for a loudspeaker). Which means that you should always choose your preferred transducer first, then consider amps/DACs/etc.

 

[Shane D]

Have any of the folks using EQ programs tried the Schiit Loki? I realize that it is not as technical or detailed as the various programs or a 16 band EQ, but I think it is awesome. In my experience it can improve any headphone.
Depending on the headphone, I add a bit of bass kick, bring out that midrange more or dial back some of that treble.

I am currently sitting on several pieces as I narrow my choices. But I can envision a final set up with:
ZX300 to SMSL SU-8 to

Top shelf = Vali 2 (will be upgraded to Lyr 3 in the near future)

Middle shelf = Loki feeding SP200, which is on its way. Neutral THX amp totally shaped by the Loki. Burson Fun-Classic will need to go away.

Split SE cables feeding both the above.

Bottom shelf = Cavalli LCX fed via XLR. With this the Liquid Spark will go away.

I think that will give me the best of all worlds.

Shane D

 

[nerone]

Dogs can't hear noises which aren't there. I'm not talking about belief, but about physics. Physics is not subject to opinion. If burn in does improve cable quality then you can measure this improvement, yes? So...do you have some measurements for me? All I see is people typing "cables sound better once you've burned them in". That's just typing, though.

You mentioning engines is comparing apples to oranges. Solid state Amps are made of the same components as laptops, and the components are not subject to burn in. Transistors, capacitors, resistors, wire, leds, switches, diodes. Which of these are measurably better after a few tens or hundreds of hours? I must have be reading different manafacturer datasheets to you.

I'm not suggesting anyone is lying. If you pay £1000 for a usb lead it WILL sound better, to you. But it won't measure any better, because it was already perfect (if not faulty).

Trust your own ears. What you can hear you can hear. But be aware that you hear what you want to hear. You can't just "try for yourself" without rigging up a proper test to rule out expectation.

I'm new here and having looked around this - and other - sites it's very clear that see some are more receptive to this sort of thing (burn in, magic/directional cables etc) than others. I find it very amusing but I don't have an axe to grind and I don't do "someone is wrong on the internet" arguments so I'm done here.

Computers and amplifiers are made of the same components, but achieve completely different results. The same can be said about other things, like cables, their construction may interfere with the power signal. Keep in mind that the 60hz on your outlet isn't pure, there is some ripple that may interact differently with cable capacitance, inductance, etc.
If we assume humanity knows everything there is to be known and we are capable to measure everything there is to be measured, than I'd agree with you, I just don't think we are there yet. Just remember that antimatter was theorized in 1928, way before humanity was able to see or measure it in 2008 when it was first observed.

 

[KukoCL]

Computers and amplifiers are made of the same components, but achieve completely different results. The same can be said about other things, like cables, their construction may interfere with the power signal. Keep in mind that the 60hz on your outlet isn't pure, there is some ripple that may interact differently with cable capacitance, inductance, etc.
If we assume humanity knows everything there is to be known and we are capable to measure everything there is to be measured, than I'd agree with you, I just don't think we are there yet. Just remember that antimatter was theorized in 1928, way before humanity was able to see or measure it in 2008 when it was first observed.

You are suggesting that you can perceive sounds that our actual technology doesn't. The human hearing range is WAY below the measurements we can take, just look at the very same files Jason uploaded some posts before with the A3 measurements.

Proving that an amp and cables can improve with burn in, it's as easy to take measurements before and after the burn in. But where are those?

 

[nerone]

You are suggesting that you can perceive sounds that our actual technology doesn't. The human hearing range is WAY below the measurements we can take, just look at the very same files Jason uploaded some posts before with the A3 measurements.

Proving that an amp and cables can improve with burn in, it's as easy to take measurements before and after the burn in. But where are those?

I'm suggesting that maybe we can hear things that can't be measured. Or maybe we are not measuring all things that matter to our hearing system, which includes our brain. Or are you suggesting that we are already able to measure everything that is to be measured?
But my actual point is that I can't dismiss what others perceive just because I don't or because the equipment we have doesn't show differences, as electronic equipment measure what they were designed to measure, nothing else.

 

[Clemmaster]

I'm suggesting that maybe we can hear things that can't be measured. Or maybe we are not measuring all things that matter to our hearing system, which includes our brain. Or are you suggesting that we are already able to measure everything that is to be measured?
But my actual point is that I can't dismiss what others perceive just because I don't or because the equipment we have doesn't show differences, as electronic equipment measure what they were designed to measure, nothing else.

Very well said.
Music is dynamic. 99% of the measurements are steady state, frequency magnitude ones. They usually completely omit the phase component.
In other words: they only show half of a fraction of the story...

 

[elitico]

Aristoteles once wrote: ”The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know.”

This is very true here. If you know how actual science research works, you would know that a lot of scientific papers and articles are based on former studies and often just come up with the same conclusions. Then we have all the lacking ways of collecting and analyzing data. Many studies can´t therefore say much about anything. People still sadly tend to use the result to generalize over something much bigger.

Good science takes time and often cost a lot of money. I have spent many years at the university and some of my best friends do noting else than science research. The lacking of funds and quality research is a big problem. This whole thing with ”if you can’t measure it it does not exist”, is therefor very questionable. Like someone already stated, we maybe just lack the knowledge to measure the differences. Good scientist have an open mind and are willing to think outside the box. Sure there are scientist that maybe have worked with one theory their whole life and never will change their mind, even when proven wrong. But that is just sad, it happens quite often though...

 

[KukoCL]

I'll leave this here.. *slowly walks out*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I'll leave the interpretation for you guys, and I'll not comment again back not for lack of interest, indeed it's a very cool conversation and I'm not trying to offend anyone, but it's not the topic of this thread.

 

[Odin412]

Here's the problem: by measurements, every amp is neutral.

Very true - and yet they sound different. We are clearly not measuring all the things that we can hear.