[Ableza]

True, we all have our tastes, perceptions and preferences.

Still, I believe in physics. So, if differences are audible, they must also be measurable. Only, I think that often we don't know (yet) what/how to measure. Science isn't a finished project. For example in the audio, for decades people focused on the frequency domain, and thought this would explain everything. Until we discovered that our ears are much more sensitive to differences in the time domain than differences in the frequency domain. Without any doubt, there are still things we don't know, but have a significant impact. Even the best electronics designers admit that they can't always explain audible differences with measurements.

That's not the point. The point is it is not about measurements, it is about liking one sort of sound over another. It's personal taste. Measurements don't matter to taste, measurements only matter to a designer.

 

[EricDH]

That's not the point. The point is it is not about measurements, it is about liking one sort of sound over another. It's personal taste. Measurements don't matter to taste, measurements only matter to a designer.

Ok, I probably missed a part of the discussion, hence my reply that was a bit beside the point (but true in itself).

I agree about the taste thing. I can still very well remember one particular dealer demo, where a pretty fancy new Audio Research (tube) amp was introduced (feeding some big Wilson Audio speakers). For me the first time I heard an AR. And I was perplexed. Around me I heard several people marvel about the sound, the richness of the tone, etc. And I didn't believe what I heard from them. How could they be so enthusiastic? Because, all I heard was a sluggish sound. Not fast, not precise. Absolutely not to my liking. So yes, tastes differ. I have to add, that at later demo's I heard tube amplification that I could appreciate much more (including AR), so in this case there was a mismatch between amp and speaker maybe.

 

[Ableza]

Exactly. The discussion started when someone said they preferred the sound of speakers in a room to that of headphones. Although those are two completely different experiences and in my opinion both are vital, I said the reason why has more to do with personal taste and preference than with the technical performance of either system. People just like what they like.

 

[Robert Padgett]

That's not the point. The point is it is not about measurements, it is about liking one sort of sound over another. It's personal taste. Measurements don't matter to taste, measurements only matter to a designer.

"It tests good" Three words wasted on a true lover of Music.
If I like the sound, that is the only test that matters.
If there is a subjective measurement based on "satisfaction" the parameters of that test would include all factors, none more important than the listener's stress-level and mood. The experiences of that day impact perception, as do 'set and setting'.
Parametric testing of human behaviors has always proved difficult because we are Homo Sapien Sapien, whose distinguishing difference from our closest Ape cousins is discernment.
Now I would enjoy the video of two Grey Back Gorillas, after having figured out that headphones are not a delicious treat, to see them listening to some Schiit...

 

[Androxylo]

"It tests good" Three words wasted on a true lover of Music.
If I like the sound, that is the only test that matters.
If there is a subjective measurement based on "satisfaction" the parameters of that test would include all factors, none more important than the listener's stress-level and mood. The experiences of that day impact perception, as do 'set and setting'.
Parametric testing of human behaviors has always proved difficult because we are Homo Sapien Sapien, whose distinguishing difference from our closest Ape cousins is discernment.
Now I would enjoy the video of two Grey Back Gorillas, after having figured out that headphones are not a delicious treat, to see them listening to some Schiit...

Frankly I'm still very satisfied with my current desktop system, but I suspect that my 1992 model amp that I purchased back in 1996 can yield to something even better. I think upgrading the amplifier every 25 years or so should improve the sound. That's why I'm on this forum, waiting for Rag 2 review

 

[judson_w]

I do not think I have said this in this thread yet, but I will add how ears can affect things. I have a friend who was studying to be an audiologist (and now is one). She gave me a free hearing test and found that I have some hearing loss in the mid range (likely do to the numerous ear infections I had as a child). Thus, that V response people seem to like from headphones? My ears are naturally "eq'ed" for that, so my ears just make the high and low frequencies more peaked.

I do prefer neutral sounding headphones, but also now understand that my neutral is not as neutral as it could be. It has also made me think a bit of how I do mixing when I am on a soundboard for different things.

 

[EricDH]

I do not think I have said this in this thread yet, but I will add how ears can affect things. I have a friend who was studying to be an audiologist (and now is one). She gave me a free hearing test and found that I have some hearing loss in the mid range (likely do to the numerous ear infections I had as a child). Thus, that V response people seem to like from headphones? My ears are naturally "eq'ed" for that, so my ears just make the high and low frequencies more peaked.

I do prefer neutral sounding headphones, but also now understand that my neutral is not as neutral as it could be. It has also made me think a bit of how I do mixing when I am on a soundboard for different things.

I prefer neutral too. But (apart from any hearing losses) I am convinced that my neutral will differ from your neutral, which in turn will differ from Ableza's neutral.

And that doesn't matter at all. I know my taste and preferences. And I buy equipment in line with that. I read equipment reviews keeping in mind the preferences of the different reviewers (as far as I know those). It's a bit akin to reading wine reviews. The recommendations of some reviewers I know I can follow, because we have similar taste. From other wine reviewers, when they recommend something I know I better don't buy it.

Coming back to audio, in the end it is about music of course, and how we can enjoy it to the maximum extent. Still, discussing audio on a forum like this (and the occasional cat) is fun. We learn from each other, and have a good time. The only thing I hate is when people start fights (or at least heated arguments) to convince others of their preferences (what is in their perception "the one and only truth" of course). Those fights I avoid, I deliberately don't reply because it's useless, and I don't want to add fuel to the fire.

 

[bluebanshee76]

So, I´m in the middle of breaking in my Rag 2. What I can say so far (after around 5 hours) is that it sounds really sweet with my HD800. Coming from a Questyle CMA600i there seems to be less "Amp" in the signal path. I don't know how to phrase it differently. With the Questyle I had a nice stage with instrument separation on a high level or so I thought. With Rag 2 the instruments did not move away from each other but they are more easier to identify from each other. Especially with classical music. First thing I tried was Giuliano Carmignola with the Sonatori De La Gioiosa Marcas rendition of Vivaldis "Four Seasons", a recording I know in great detail since it opened the world of classical music for me years ago and is regularly revisited ever since. It never sounded so open und clearly structured before. Detail retrieval from Yggy is immaculate as always but now I am under the impression that the details that Yggy presents from the recording are pinned tight to the stage at the correct position instead of just be there. Hard to describe if you haven't heard it before.

Apart from that my fear that Rag 2 might be total overkill for the HD800 is completely gone. There is enough manoeuvring space on the volume dial in both directions with medium gain. And no audible noise floor, at least to my ears.

 

[yonson]

Interestingly, with my ancient desktop system I still get much better sound than with headphones. So I listen headphones only at work. Compare those and tell me why desktop (2 feet from head) still beats cans:

Desktop: USB -> Khadas tone board -> power section (no preamp) Arcam Delta 290 -> Dynaudio M10

Cans: USB -> Topping DX3 Pro -> Denon AH-D7000

Ancient? M10's have only been out like 4 years...

 

[yonson]

And.. one doesn't listen with ones ears only.

You have to breathe through your eyelids!

 

[Pietro Cozzi Tinin]

You have to breathe through your eyelids!

Huh?

 

[FrivolsListener]

Huh?

Not-so-obscure movie reference.

 

[Androxylo]

Ancient? M10's have only been out like 4 years...

Arcam is 1992 model

 

[Androxylo]

Exactly. The discussion started when someone said they preferred the sound of speakers in a room to that of headphones. Although those are two completely different experiences and in my opinion both are vital, I said the reason why has more to do with personal taste and preference than with the technical performance of either system. People just like what they like.

Nope, this is not what I said. I said my desktop system produces better sound. It doesn't mean I don't like headphones. I like them more than lower quality stereo systems elsewhere.

 

[Ableza]

Nope, this is not what I said. I said my desktop system produces better sound. It doesn't mean I don't like headphones. I like them more than lower quality stereo systems elsewhere.

It's exactly what you said. You think the desktop system produces better sound. Therefor you prefer it.