[Anaxilus]

Quote:

You'd need an amp with a limited dynamic range and serious noise/distortion issues to compromise the HD800s in those respects. While I've recently discovered that some STXs have a less than ideal performance on some settings, in my experience there was nothing to limit the HD800 experience.

Dynamic range has nothing to do w/ dynamic contrasts and transients in fast complex passages at a given volume.  Noise and distortion is not the definitive measure of transparency and resolution as evidenced by the O2's failure to resolve as good as three of the amps in my sig even though one is a noisier tube amp.  
 
What was the source/amp chain for the 'highest' level of performance you've heard the HD800 and at what dB w/ what tracks did you test to compare with the STX?  Did you A/B this system directly?

 

[Tilpo]

Dynamic range has nothing to do w/ dynamic contrasts and transients in fast complex passages at a given volume.  Noise and distortion is not the definitive measure of transparency and resolution as evidenced by the O2's failure to resolve as good as three of the amps in my sig even though one is a noisier tube amp.  

What was the source/amp chain for the 'highest' level of performance you've heard the HD800 and at what dB w/ what tracks did you test to compare with the STX?  Did you A/B this system directly?

The 'ability to resolve' sounds like a subjective description. It could very well be that the other amps are better sounding, but by no means more transparent.

Transparency is exactly the same thing as linearity, and linearity is defined as the lack of distortion and noise. If something is completely linear it will be completely transparent, it's as simple as that.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

For me the xonar stx, is as much transparent as you could get it. Now I'm perhaps missing some "audio magic" with more expensive options but for the sake of my sanity, and my wallet, I would stay with this solution for a while.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

The 'ability to resolve' sounds like a subjective description. It could very well be that the other amps are better sounding, but by no means more transparent.
Transparency is exactly the same thing as linearity, and linearity is defined as the lack of distortion and noise. If something is completely linear it will be completely transparent, it's as simple as that.

No it isn't.  Just because you say it doesn't mean your conclusion is correct.  Hearing information on one amp that isn't on another is transparency.  Funny how a wire w/ gain amp that measures noise below audible levels masks information.  How would you explain a noisier tube amp that presents more spatial and micro detail across the spectrum?  Suffice to say, this argument is going in the usual direction and is not in the proper forum but I'll enjoy watching people choke on Ethan Winter's 'electrical definition' of transparency when the data gets released.  I know some here like to cling to the dogma of people commenting beyond the scope of their field, but I'll stick to the engineers in the industry who have been building this stuff for decades especially when the objective measurements and data match my subjective impressions.  I'm not ignorant enough to simply accept that amplifier 'X' is presenting my ears less information because of the less flashier box it comes in.  Especially if the one next to it is even worse or in an Altoids tin.  It's time for this oversimplified fallacy to end.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

How would you explain a noisier tube amp that presents more spatial and micro detail across the spectrum? 

I can get a similar result (I mean, having the impression of more spatiality & details) by using a subtle reverb (and I insist on the word subtle, no big amounts) to the dsp chain.
There is also some vst by wave (called "tube saturator", cost 100$)  , to emulate the sound from a tube (and according to some plugin community, it's quite realistic).
I think there's in one hand "transparency", and in other hand what your "high end gear" add to make it more pleasing.

 

[purrin]

I actually have experiments that show differences in loudness distribution among the following: 
 

• Original WAV file
• WAV file -> PWD -> CMOY -> HP1000 -> Microphone -> AD converter -> WAV
• WAV file -> PWD -> CMOY -> HD800 -> Microphone -> AD converter -> WAV
• WAV file -> PWD -> BA -> HP1000 -> Microphone -> AD converter -> WAV
• WAV file -> PWD -> BA -> HD800 -> Microphone -> AD converter -> WAV

 
Despite any losses introduced at the (microphone + AD converter), the CMOY loudness distribution curve indicates that the softest sounds are either missing or compressed upward. The loudness distribution curve of the Balancing Act looks the most similar to the original wave file. The differences are not significant. However they are consistent and have been repeatable for the few samples that I've gathered. This data is preliminary, but once I have more data I will be posting some very interesting information.
 
 

I can get a similar result (I mean, having the impression of more spatiality & details) by using a subtle reverb (and I insist on the word subtle, no big amounts) to the dsp chain.
There is also some vst by wave (called "tube saturator", cost 100$)  , to emulate the sound from a tube (and according to some plugin community, it's quite realistic).
I think there's in one hand "transparency", and in other hand what your "high end gear" add to make it more pleasing.
 

 
I've tried that Tube Saturator. It made the sound more distorted and wasn't anything like the better tube amps I've heard. It does do a good job of emulating the crappier tube amps though. DSP reverbs do increase spatiality, but I've never heard them increase resolution. I think people have the misconception that tube amps are noisy and have a lot of good sounding even order harmonic distortion. Even order harmonic distortion still sounds like crap (although it's preferable to odd order.)
 
Good tube amps shouldn't be purposely generating any notable even order harmonic distortion at their intended operating points. Some tube amps can be much quieter than solid-state or hybrid amps (this is from experience of stuff I've actually owned.)

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I actually have experiments that show differences in loudness distribution among the following: 
 

• Original WAV file
• WAV file -> PWD -> CMOY -> HP1000 -> Microphone -> AD converter -> WAV
• WAV file -> PWD -> CMOY -> HD800 -> Microphone -> AD converter -> WAV
• WAV file -> PWD -> BA -> HP1000 -> Microphone -> AD converter -> WAV
• WAV file -> PWD -> BA -> HD800 -> Microphone -> AD converter -> WAV

 
Despite any losses introduced at the (microphone + AD converter), the CMOY loudness distribution curve indicates that the softest sounds are either missing or compressed upward. The loudness distribution curve of the Balancing Act looks the most similar to the original wave file. The differences are not significant. However they are consistent and have been repeatable for the few samples that I've gathered. This data is preliminary, but once I have more data I will be posting some very interesting information.

 
I'll be pretty damn interested in seeing this...

 

[Shahrose]

I can't believe folks are actually using sources and amps like the STX and then claiming them to be as good as it gets. You're listening to the same headphones, but I guarantee you you're not listening to the same sound as some of us.
The HD800 deserve better.
 
Someone asked where the ST/STX lack? The list is great, but I'll mention a few things. In comparison to high-end gear, its sound is dry, small, often harsh, flat (as in microdynamics), somewhat smeared, lacking low-end detail...I could go on. If you want something significantly better (and cheaper to boot), get the Musiland 02US. It still doesn't do the HD800 justice, but it's something I can listen to despite having better stuff.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

. DSP reverbs do increase spatiality, but I've never heard them increase resolution.

It doesn't increase the resolution , but artificially increase the number of details, or "sharpen" / put emphasis on existing details.
But it could muddy up sounds too, there are different quality of reverb, and this require some experiments.
This might be harder to trick the ears with  a  hd800 though.
 
Quote:

It does do a good job of emulating the crappier tube amps though

I don't know what's "good" tube sound anyway. Have you tried  different settings ? So far it's the best emulator on the market (well, what people say).

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

Someone asked where the ST/STX lack? The list is great, but I'll mention a few things. In comparison to high-end gear, its sound is dry, small, often harsh, flat (as in microdynamics), somewhat smeared, lacking low-end detail...

Well compared to my srh940, I disagree. The srh940 sound much more  dry, harsh, and "dirty". Perhaps the srh940 have more dynamics though.
And regarding details , the hd800 beat the hd595, and they  have a  very different presentation to srh940 : despite both hd800 & srh940 being detailed , it's a bit an apple to orange comparison.

 

[Tilpo]

No it isn't.  Just because you say it doesn't mean your conclusion is correct.  Hearing information on one amp that isn't on another is transparency.  Funny how a wire w/ gain amp that measures noise below audible levels masks information.  How would you explain a noisier tube amp that presents more spatial and micro detail across the spectrum?  Suffice to say, this argument is going in the usual direction and is not in the proper forum but I'll enjoy watching people choke on Ethan Winter's 'electrical definition' of transparency when the data gets released.  I know some here like to cling to the dogma of people commenting beyond the scope of their field, but I'll stick to the engineers in the industry who have been building this stuff for decades especially when the objective measurements and data match my subjective impressions.  I'm not ignorant enough to simply accept that amplifier 'X' is presenting my ears less information because of the less flashier box it comes in.  Especially if the one next to it is even worse or in an Altoids tin.  It's time for this oversimplified fallacy to end.

I really don't feel arguing with you at the moment. But I can guarantee that I'm not talking beyond the scope of my field; I have experience with the issue on both a practical and theoretical level.

Let's keep it at the fact that we disagree, and I advice others to do the same. I've seen too many threads derail discussing the almost exact same issue.

 

[SONIC BOOM]

Quote:

I can't believe folks are actually using sources and amps like the STX and then claiming them to be as good as it gets. You're listening to the same headphones, but I guarantee you you're not listening to the same sound as some of us.
The HD800 deserve better.
 
Someone asked where the ST/STX lack? The list is great, but I'll mention a few things. In comparison to high-end gear, its sound is dry, small, often harsh, flat (as in microdynamics), somewhat smeared, lacking low-end detail...I could go on. If you want something significantly better (and cheaper to boot), get the Musiland 02US. It still doesn't do the HD800 justice, but it's something I can listen to despite having better stuff.

+1

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Well I notice that most of disagreement , rely on the point  that "sounding better" is not necessarily the same as "transparent".
We could define an unique"transparent sound", but not an unique "better sound".
The xonar stx, is transparent to me.

 

[davidgotsa]

Listening to Young Americans with the HD800 after being separated from it for 2 days and simply loving it!! 
 
(There should be a smiley with the HD800s, like that one) 

 

[Windsor]

Quote:

Listening to Young Americans with the HD800 after being separated from it for 2 days and simply loving it!! 
 
(There should be a smiley with the HD800s, like that one) 

 
Good stuff. 
 
This smiley's about the closest looking one to the HD 800 I've seen (as far as the default head-fi smiley's go):