[ed....... ] how much effect can be achieved when using the XXX player to drive the XX headphones?
Frankly speaking, as a consumer, I hope someone can help me with this question too. However, being a manufacturer and an experienced engineer, this question is indeed difficult for me to give an answer. Because any answer requires a reference standard in nature, and this standard shall be recognized by everyone. But such a standard does not exist in the audio industry.
(Excellent thread btw)
This is the crux of it; its why audio science review (as a site filled with ‘users’) proves toxic, as the science of it all falls apart quite quickly. Speaking as someone who has leaned 90%+ of their studies towards humanities/‘mind science(s)’; we humans are not ‘scientific’ with regards to auditioning kit. We cannot be. We ARE NOT experiencing the same things, and thusly cannot report on ‘baseline’ metrics.
Interpretation gets in the way of the data, sure- but- “what data should we encompass”?
My best amplifier had a phenomenal slew rate, and there once was a time I wouldn’t dare bi-amp without knowing the damping factor of an amp on the speakers...
I believe the electrical engineers and solderers/tinkers who swap op-amps and redo circuits with subtle variances would have a wealth of knowledge that the everyday pundits would be arguing for decades; experiences these blacksmiths’ ‘of the modern age’ have seen (heard?) first hand and have zero doubt in their relationship to the audio path- yet are discounted on popular sites for not having done ‘very specific’ double blind testing.
The notion of double blind testing (which I am happy to setup and perform for others as an intro to audio), serves a purpose, sure... but it isn’t the be all and end all to audio nirvana (which should involve a relaxed environment and HUNDREDS of hours of listening...); my experience has educated me to believe(see) that I can instantly pick up nuances in a playback that have been previously hidden, and that any aspects that render a particular playback ‘different’, are obvious. I do not need to fast switch sources in a specific setup.. (although a baseline setup I AM FAMILIAR WITH has been my base for operating, adjusting ONE VARIABLE at a time).. When a violin is the most isolated in its’ stage space it has ever been rendered, or a lyric, previously muffled or obscured can finally be heard clearly; aspects of playback can reveal improvements from previous kit, and “EAR TRAINING” and familiarity are my two best assets.
The ear training part is the killer- it took two decades for me to get many basics of understanding hifi behind me... (involving rotating hundreds of pieces of kit, and being a pro installer /‘in the industry’; much
EXPOSURE); a lot of which was listening to test tracks (non musical) at ‘the threshold of observation’.
What would have required 10% total harmonic distortion to drive me insane, became around 3% threshold (circa 2000), and probably 1% by 2005... 0.1% THD takes around a second for me to discern during a listening session, and I wouldn’t keep listening, generally wanting to find/fix issues BEFORE sitting down for hours
reviewing...
Much playback with class A amps, and having seen intro of class D amplification for audio that isn’t car subwoofers (pre 2000), watching the industry ‘evolve’ (cough) over the last fourty years has been amusing...
So I am one of those zealots that doesn’t fit the nice neat holes that we stereotype everyone into on this site (I use scientific method a LOT, but wouldn’t leave a purchasing decision to a spec sheet).
Whilst I have experienced first hand much of the stuff that is theoretical at best, and wives tales/witchcraft ‘most likely’, have important changes to playback, and I can explain scientifically why USB cables matter (more than just about any other cable in the stack(to get a baseline of ‘built right’)) etc.. I acknowledge that the majority have no idea about slew rates/benefits of ‘class A’ amplification/damping factors etc; most are happy knowing the ‘yellow belt’ basics of distortion rates given in the white sheet specifications for any given DAC chip etc...
We all have differing ideas of what scientific observations matter most to musical playback..
And thats the rub- because test tones have little to do with the relationship between five musicians on a stage playing rock and roll; or that the fifty years of artisan craftery a master puts into their recording will have wrist inflections or breath work that will not vary the source by .1dB (insignificant to measuring tools and ‘spec sheets’), but will be identifiable to every student of the instrument as being the trademark of a master.
SO the subtle stuff is often what sorts the wheat from the chaff...
It is also the stuff most affected by a bad file compression/moving to class D amplfiication/having ‘dark’ playback chain/‘insert argument between two people saying “differences are subtle and ‘not worth it’”; it is subtle, sure, but ‘not worth it’? -Its decades of mastering an instrument - that contributes to MEANINGFUL artistic expression...
If a cable change makes one music genre have one instrument play more meaningfully, there are MANY audiofools, like myself, out there finding noticable differences. (unscientifically, no doubt).
That same change would prove inconsequential majority of the time (to the masses), and so ‘science’ goes out the door.. (we are not scientific, either in our observation methods, OR in our methods for appreciation: what we look for and our training/education to apprecizate MEANINGFUL
SUBTLE changes.
____________________^^^humans are not scientific^^^___________________________
Me?
_________________________________=> why a great DAP is the source of it
all and ‘a very good place to start’: __________________
I have had a few FiiO parts, and like what they do.
I believe the company gives exceptional support for products beyond typical ‘end of life’, and that I see many decision ‘pro consumer’ and it looks like the mission statement or ‘motis operandi’ is to do well in the (sales) market by constant due dilligence and dedication to the end customer..
I agree that many times it has taken them a year (or more) of constant firmware updates to get their ‘multi faceted’ products firing on all cylinders PERFECTLY; but I see them do these efforts year in/year out and have been consistently DEDICATED to being pro consumer/‘pro planet’.
I will buy a FiiO part unresearched and ‘impulsively’ - and I cannot say this about more than a handful of audio manufacturers. (well done FiiO).
I have made comment that I’d take (my) M11+ over the M15 or the M17.
This was a comment, mostly unresearched, based on how perfect a transport the M11+ is (and my usage scenario; which has it transporting 0s and 1s into offboard DACs or analogue via external headphone amps).
Having read more about the M17 in this thread, I have now been actively promoting that part.
The guy I loaned a nice Burson pre/DAC/headamp to yesterday now knows that the M17 in ‘desktop’ mode might be the part they are after...
What I do know is that the transport quality of the M11+ is ‘SOOOOOOOOO GOOD’ (‘great‘ to anyone using an interpreter/translator); the improvements it brings to EVERY DAC is generally more than the change one might experience between two different DACs (at the entry level price points/‘same class’).
Even bluetooth is better, which indicates the improvements are ‘in part’ due to perfectly reading the source files. -Remember: most consumer class equipment is simply built to be ‘compatible’ and is happy relying on all sorts of ‘error correction’ which will ‘fill in the gaps’ with predictive math.. ; which is the difference with why a ladder DAC with accurate ‘half voltages’ vs normal methods interpolating and ‘guessing’ the half steps, as ‘averages’; fast transients and long bass (sound) waves all noticable improve; whether that is instantly noticable to YOUR preferred music genre is semantics- playback equipment has real and measurable ‘scientific’ variables, that manufacturers DO NOT WANT US TO LOOK AT (cause manipulating a few common variables is easy, and so ‘smoke and mirrors’ regarding the ACTUAL things
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR....) which will make very discernable differences that effect the emotional engagement with a piece of kit. *(whether bass notes be more exteneded or ‘tighter’/‘tauter’, or ‘the dirt unders ERICs’ fingernails..’ or a particular wrist flick or breath movement....)(the subtle stuff is where the magic is often at)
The FiiO M11+ is such a good reader or *transport* that even bluetooth has faster more musical response to file playback. This blows me away and was not expected.. but, DAPs generally flog phones as transports; funny that... (not really, but the consensus from savvy consumers is ‘why spend money on a box when I already have one that does the same’?!)
Truth is when spec sheet wars favour specific measurements (ONLY) and consumers couldn’t argue their way out of a wet paper bag as to what makes audio kit GOOD, then a lot of grey areas of digital music reproduction fly under the radar of the noses of ’would be’ pundits... Due to all the obsfucation of the relevant data, many are happy just leaving some arguments ‘on the fence’. (eg cables)
As an example about spec sheets and ‘chasing numbers’:
not all numbers are equal, yet we as consumers treat them so... so as to get out of delicate ‘audiofool’ standard arguements- I will take the discussion to ‘digital camera sensors’ for a brief second; a 4 megapixel fovean sensor has detail more/equal to a 16 megapixel x-trans sensor which is more/equal to a 24 megapixel CMOS sensor.
There is a very simple reason CMOS sensors rule the market- mostly it is due to consumers having been educated to believe that megapixels matter (MOST).
Whilst there is truth to the notion of ‘megapixel matters’; it is mostly due to the number indicating ‘when’ in history said tech came to market (the timeline favouring CPU evolution and the ‘power’ of ancillory/processing chips to handle the data.
I still shoot with a 4 megapixel fovean camera (from the 2000s), and it is interchangeable (in daylight shooting conditions) with any of my nice fuji xtrans stuff (that I downgraded to from ‘full frame’ Sony A7ii)... If I was a ‘yellow belt’ consumer pure and simple, with no ‘real world’ useage /testing or understanding of the kit I use, I’d probably still use the full frame sony (and talk up its ‘technical prowess’ (like dynamic range)), and I would go on believing in my ‘well specified’ full frame.
The reality is the two smaller camera systems mostly deliver equal performance, in some areas better, and in one area worse; and none of it matters due to handling and usablity of the two ‘non Sony’ camera systems- they both consistently give better photographs, and in part that is due to enjoying using them/having them with me/usable controls that I can autopilot my way through...
I worked in a pro camera store (before Sonys’ recent takeover of the full frame market) and we kept a Sony camera in store to show how unusable they were ‘in the real world’.
All camera store staff would laugh at me for the years I endured with Sony kit.. (I have had 40+ digital camera systems since the mid-late nineties, quite a few have been Sony, some good, some not so good)
Would I recommend a Sony camera to an end user?
Maybe, but it wouldn’t have anything to do with SPEC SHEETS.
Regarding audio then, how crazy is it that we would shortlist equipment based on a harmonic distortion rating or channel seperation figure.
They help us understand the kit; eg if a balanced amp has the same channel seperation spec for Single ended output as the balanced jacks, then that TELLS US something about the design ideals and ‘actual delivery’ of said design.
Getting back to my M11+; Exceptional trasnsport/good DAC/acceptible amp/great tool (eg bluetooth send/receive, DSD conversion etc)
When I feed it to other DACs- the device proves itself as an audio essential (would never use a phone/‘other’ USB transport vs the FiiO transport); it is of a high class nature and would hold its own against some reference transports I have used/owned (some being highly modified).
When I feed the audio into a great external headphone amp, the DAC quality can be appreciated. - a little shy of the iFi Diablo DAC (which is the closest to a ladder DAC sound I have ever heard in non R2R kit)
But when comparing the internal ‘THX’ amps vs the rest of the circuit; they are the ‘low quality‘ “holds the part back” part of the kit. (the weakest link)
VS desktop ‘class A’ amp kit (worth vastly more than the full cost of the M11+), the M11+ is obviously lacking... The aforementioned iFi Diablo is a step up in amplification quality,..
Is a FiiO M11+ paired with an iFi Diablo a pretty neat ‘end game’ (mid-fi) setup? Yes - absolutely. For four times the cost a consumer could start building a hifi rig in the tiers above such kit.. but this is two tiers of kit ABOVE entry level, and the point where ‘best bang for buck’ starts to seriously falter.
The notion of the M17 that goes the route of fixing the achilles heel (the amp section), is terrific. One box to ‘rule them all’.
Portable and desktop-able. More swiss army knife that even the M11+ AND has a flick blade that is effectively a full on medieval broad sword!!
My comments here might not look focused on any topic; they are not- I don’t care to argue semantics of double blind AB testing with extremists to their belief system (who have no ability to hear others’ points of view, or understand the lack of evolution in the measuring tools that science often needs do when playing catchup to a new field of enquiry (sound science is a ‘broad term’ and does in no way cover all sound, as science, in meaningful ways to how music reacts to a soundspace and ‘as played’ by masterful musicians); what we do know is that manufacturers will chase any flavour of the moment ‘consumer spec sheet interest’ to sell to their FEARS; vs a few honest hifi companies that tailor for audio quality and sell to our DESIRES..
It is easy to obsfucate numbers towards what consumers (think they) want. When consumers knew that IPS (in-plane switching) LCD screens had better colour accuracy and were generally ‘the more expensive product’ on the market (accounting for <10% of market share), manufacturers started pairing 6bit (colour inaccurate) contollers (cheap) with IPS LCDs. The result was MORE IPS screens on the market (meet the demand of ‘savvy consumers’) who were now misled by their ‘yellow belt’ education. (IPS = good)
When we buy audio kit not for how it sounds, but rather ‘how it measures’; we are doomed to audio kit that measures well and sounds horrible, or at least ‘unmusical’.
As a consumer who has consciously bought ‘inferior’ (spec sheet) kit to replace ‘well regarded kit’, on multiple occasions, I have found that the more musical heritage brands massively outpunch kit that often is 10x better in some specifications.
It is fair to say I learned decades ago to ‘trust’ a few of the hifi brands, and to take spec sheets with ‘a grain of salt’.(a handful of salt sometimes)
FiiO as a company have often done ‘market tuning’ of parts.
Now that they have dediced to compete with ‘the big dogs’ on the international market, they have output a run of machines tailored to western neutrality sound.
In my eyes FiiOs’ present market strategy and production puts them at the top of their game.
This is a market player who has matured, rolled with the punches over the years, and now has clear objectives to target and is ‘hitting it out of the park’.
I’d replace a stack to an M17 / use an M17 as a ‘b’ setup (eg office) for any big $ audiofiles that do not want to ‘give up’ much...
using the lowly M11+ (whose weakest aspect is the amp), driving some Ultrasone edition 5 using the 4.4mm balanced output- they will take the full 120 volume output (low gain). Most comfortable listening is between 86 and 102, and irrelevant to the volume level chosen, the music is lacking weight to the instruments (that would come with expensive headhphone amps - costing more than the total cost of the M11+).
Knowing that the M17 has directly addressed this ‘weakest aspect’ of their latest designs, and that the TOTAL BUILD is ‘perfect to make use of the high power output’ AKM4499 - this is evolution of tech, with the marriage of ‘right time/right place’.
I’d hope the M17 proves a market rejuvinator like the iPhone 3Gs was to ‘smart phones’; the M17 is really good ‘one box’ does all that looks to be able to deliver on the promises that such boxes have been pushing for, for..,well, for aeons.... (Hifiman 60X/80X DAPs back inthe 2000s)
If it wasn’t for the great writeups being given here discussing the M17 I wouldn’t know any of this, of course, and would be simply comparing its’ specs vs another... (and was why I was happy believing that it had nothing to give me over the M11+).
I use the M11+ basically as a transport; if I wanted an amp built in that matched the ‘tier’ of the rest of the circuits’ sound; that would be the M17!
With that ‘heat diminishing’ custom case; I would buy the M17 knowing I was solid for a decade, and that some lucky relative would net an (massive) upgrade in sound quality and usability when I was ready to move on....