[OJNeg]

I think you are missing the point Stan is making. All amplifiers that are designed to be 'transparent' sound the same . That isn't really up for debate anymore it's just a fact that that some people can't seem to grasp even given the evidence to support it. Now it appears you have found an amp that isn't transparent and you prefer the sound, that is also fine and nothing can compete with a listeners subjective taste. Even if your new amp actually sounds the same as an O2 if you were to blind test yourself it doesn't mean that the new amp doesn't still sound better to you. If we want to think the expensive fancy tube amp sounds better then it will. My advice to someone looking for an amp with the HD600 would be to get one of the many, cheap transparent amps available if they want to hear the HD600 shine as a clean , clear window into the music that extracts the maximum from the recording . This is how I prefer to hear the HD600 And It also suits my subjective taste . It sounds fantastic to me this way. Now that's not to say that someone else may prefer a coloured sound from the HD600 via a tube amp or a poorly designed SS one. only they can work that out for themselves but we have a duty to make the difference clear when it comes to recommending amps. It's easy to recommend a transparent Amp but it's impossible to recommend a flawed amp that changes the sound or influences bias based and price /looks/ weight etc! Only the end listeners experience can decide that for themselves.

 
Good to know that you're such an authority on the topic that you can single-handedly end the debate. You must be very intelligent.
 
Consider the possibility that the current set of audio measurements might not be the end-all-be-all in terms of determining audio "transparency" and don't tell you everything about an amplifiers sound. Consider that there are other characteristics that are more important to determining sound quality rather than THD tests on a dScope.
 
Again, I'm sure the O2 sounds great to anyone who has already predetermined it as "transparent" and has yet to compare it to anything better. That used to be me. Since this is an impressions thread, I'd like to add that what CADCAM said. When I owned the O2 I also felt it sounded grainy and slightly harsh. I tried other amplifiers with the HD600 and I found big improvements in overall clarity. Those amps did, in a sense, offer a greater window into any given recording and sounded more "transparent" for lack of a better word. My other problem with the O2 was lack of dynamics, big and small.
 
This thread is starting to get off topic. James, feel free to start a thread in Sound Science called "HD600 + O2 most transparent evar FTW" where we can continue this debate. I'll be along there shortly to comment, unless I forget....

 

[StanD]

And, there are quite a few studies showing the opposite. Search AES for Jim Johnston's papers. Regardless, I have a study of my own, my ears, as do a multitude of others who happen not to subscribe to a religious outlook. Citing science in the name of religion. Wonderful. Nice to be back in 1634.
What?

Take an amp that's flat to 20K. Say, one hears to 16K. He can still tell the 20K info is there due to its subharmonics. It's not a subject for debate.

 
Previously you stated, "heard the sub-harmonics of very high frequencies, allowing the brain to think they're present." This is not the same as hearing a higher frequency due to its subharmonics a in your last post.
Can you cite the exact paper that Jim Johnston wrote? Research and testing does not concur with your statements. I hope you are enjoying 1634, I'm enjoying the present.

 

[krismusic]

Fair enough. Makes perfect sense.


Sorry to hear about the Tinnitus....

Thanks. It's a PITA. Just out of interest, maybe take this test sometime. http://www.vintageip.com/test/abbado.m4a

 

[DarthFader]

  There have been enough studies about lossless files and hres to illustrate that people really can't hear the difference except for some fringe cases of moderate to highly compressed files. Filling in the subharmonics will not make a difference since achieving a flar FR is commonplace putting amps on an equal footing.

An absence of proof doesn't prove absence. The studies I've seen have only failed to find evidentiary support for the claim that people can hear the difference (e.g. the Myer and Moran study). But that doesn't mean that people can't differentiate. It's like saying, "Nobody here sees any black swans so they don't exist." Unless you can test every single person in the population, you can't make that kind of claim and have it be true.

 

[paulguru]

Are you listening at high volume?

.

Low 
around 10% Windows mixer and i must decrease in these times

 

[StanD]

 
An absence of proof doesn't prove absence. The studies I've seen have only failed to find evidentiary support for the claim that people can hear the difference (e.g. the Myer and Moran study). But that doesn't mean that people can't differentiate. It's like saying, "Nobody here sees any black swans so they don't exist." Unless you can test every single person in the population, you can't make that kind of claim and have it be true.

Plenty of tests have been made to directly compare, so there is no absence ot be concerned with. Humans have limitations, for examle unlike black swans we cannot fly on our own, no mater how much one may wish to. Our hearing has finite limitations, upgrades are not yet available.

 

[Shaffer]

Previously you stated, "heard the sub-harmonics of very high frequencies, allowing the brain to think they're present." This is not the same as hearing a higher frequency due to its subharmonics a in your last post.

Now you want to debate semantics, in hopes of modifying your own position. Great.

Can you cite the exact paper that Jim Johnston wrote? Research and testing does not concur with your statements. I hope you are enjoying 1634, I'm enjoying the present.

I haven't looked at Jim's studies in years. No need. I can just talk to him, if it's a matter of importance.

Love the, "I know you are, but what am I." Speaks of a fluid argument.

 

[krismusic]

Low 
around 10% Windows mixer and i must decrease in these times

Hmmm. Doesn't sound like excessive volume is the problem. To answer your original question, I would say that no, the 600's should not cause that symptom. Maybe get your ears checked out by an audiologist.

 

[betula]

To my ears there is a clear difference between Flac and MP3... (Trying the same album.) However I find less difference between Flac and DSD...

 

[StanD]

Now you want to debate semantics, in hopes of modifying your own position. Great.
I haven't looked at Jim's studies in years. No need. I can just talk to him, if it's a matter of importance.

Love the, "I know you are, but what am I." Speaks of a fluid argument.

Not semantics, your use case of subharmonics are completely different. Hearsay doesn't work, cite the papers.

 

[DarthFader]

  Plenty of tests have been made to directly compare, so there is no absence ot be concerned with. Humans have limitations, for examle unlike black swans we cannot fly on our own, no mater how much one may wish to. Our hearing has finite limitations, upgrades are not yet available.

No, no. You misunderstand me. Say I hypothesize that "people can hear a difference between lossless and lossy" then I test a sample of people and there isn't a statistically significant difference (let's say people only identify a dif. 50% of the time, which is no better than chance). I don't have proof of my hypothesis. This doesn't mean that it isn't possible to tell a difference. It means I don't have proof that people can tell.

 

[StanD]

  To my ears there is a clear difference between Flac and MP3... (Trying the same album.) However I find less difference between Flac and DSD...

Unless one does a proper controlled test within the human limits of Echoic Memory, there's nothing accurate in a comparison.

 

[betula]

  Unless one does a proper controlled test within the human limits of Echoic Memory, there's nothing accurate in a comparison.

The more bits the fuller sound to my ears... Up to a limit...

 

[Shaffer]

Not semantics, your use case of subharmonics are completely different. Hearsay doesn't work, cite the papers.

How is the case of subharmonics completely different; it's exactly the same thing? One hears the frequencies beyond his physical limit do to their subharrmonics. The brain, then, takes that info and translates it into higher frequencies being present in one's auditory view, if you will. Same comment stated differently. I'm afraid this still comes down to you trying to debate semantics. Internet scientists. Sad, really.

 

[Hijodelbrx]

Stan, re: HD600 and scaling.  While I agree 100% about 'garbage in. garbage out' being an absolute audio truth, your point about HD600's not scaling leaves me confused.  If x-component is neutral and sounds better as you improve components down the chain, isn't this the definition of 'scaling'?  I've always believed this to be so, I'm curious as to your definition.  Perhaps you can provide an example of a component that does scale well.  Or is it that you don't believe in the concept of 'scaling' at all?  Again, I'm just curious, it's all opinion.  Obviously, mine is that the HD600 is one of the all-time great audio components that rewards its users when upgrading and is the epitome of a component that scales magnificently.