[castleofargh]

about poisonous brussel sprouts:
 

 

[headdict]

  If audiophiles won't accept free digital EQ on the desktop, why would they accept a portable version just because it's encased in a fancy box, and more expensive? Wait a second... nevermind. 

Exactly what I was thinking. If CHORD released a multi-grand EQ box that glows in the dark, now that might change the game!
But it's a wide spread opinion (on head-fi anyway) that it's best to combine source/dac/amp/phones pairing with EQing. Gear obsessed audiophiles wouldn't stop rationalizing their GAS.

 

[SunshineReggae]

   
Back to the definitions problem. Basically, if you ignore the actual definitions of things, and apply words however you wish, then we cannot objectively measure things because we cannot know what to measure (they are making up the terms and what they mean). But when you do have them defined - e.g. poisonous or audibly transparent - then we can test it. And make predictions based on test results. Science! Don't want science, then don't make testable claims without evidence. 

 
That's why they don't call it 'audibly transparent'. That would be too easy to (dis)prove. It gets transformed into 'clinical sounding'. If a device is 'audibly transparent', then it's 'clinical sounding'... Which is only an opinion, but if you disagree, that is just your opinion.. etc. This way it also means you don't even have to understand what audible transparency means to have an opinion about it. Works pretty great on the internets.

 

[Dark_wizzie]

Little off topic but regarding amps and coloration/distortion:
 
Isn't it possible for a person to be fine with the caveats of a colored tube amp (coloration across everything, non-accurate, etc etc) and want a tube amp for the nonlinear distortion? Which you can't get with an EQ because that's linear... or so I heard.

 

[liamstrain]

IMO, yes it is certainly possible. That's my own situation. The problem only comes in when they start to mistake their preference for objective (measured) improvement. E.g. forgetting that they like it for their flaws, and not that it is without them. 

You can simulate tubes (not via EQ, but via other plugins). But I like the real thing for the aesthetic as much as the sonic effect.

 

[Don Hills]

  about poisonous brussel sprouts:
...

 
The LD50 for Brussels Sprouts is about 105 g per Kg body weight. Between 8 to 9 kg (17.5 to 20 lb) for an 80 kg (176 lb) person. Severe health effects will occur at lower doses.
(Maybe kids are smarter than we give them credit for when they refuse to eat them.)
That concludes this Public Health announcement. We now return you to your regular programming.
 
I'm with liamstrain on this. Give the choice between a "pretty" amp and an ugly one, and they both sound the same to me, I'll pick the pretty one even if it costs more. It's like appreciating the warmth of an open fire more than the same warmth from an electric heater.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Cost is a huge factor for me, and this is way more important than aesthetics.  I've always been in the opposite camp of Billy Crystal's character, Fernando ("You look marvelous!"), from SNL.  In contrast, I believe it is better to feel good than to look good.  I want the most practical amp that I can find at a good price that does what I need it to do.  I'm much more interested in compatibility with regards to connection types, size, and technical capabilities with my gear.  Although, I am truly happy to live in a world with so many varying opinions on these types of issues.

 

[bigshot]

I'm with you Sonitus. I don't mind spending money on something I need and will use, but when I end up with something that is very expensive that I really don't need, it galls me a little every time I look at it.

 

[syNRG]

Has anything been done with DAPs?
I'm really curious as to what the blind testing has to say about spending a thousand dollars on a DAP when it's compared to something that is a fraction of the price.

 

[bigshot]

Get an iPod. They perform as well as any audiophile player.
 
http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/ipod-touch-5g.htm

 

[syNRG]

  Get an iPod. They perform as well as any audiophile player.
 
http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/ipod-touch-5g.htm

I'm looking for more than just measurements,; I'm looking for blind testing. Measurements are great, but in my opinion, they're only part of the story.
 
I was hoping someone could link blind testing between something like the AK vs. iPod vs. Clip vs. Cowon (or any combination of these or other DAPs).

 

[bigshot]

Listening tests can only tell you if something sounds different, not if it sounds accurate. For accuracy, you look at measurements. Then once you find something that is audibly transparent, you can compare it to others and see if they sound the same. If they don't, then they aren't accurate. (logic) Measurements do tell the whole story. Sound is made up of frequencies. Deviation from accuracy is distortion. Volume is dynamic range. Those three things tell you an awful lot.
 
But if it's listening tests you want, I've done direct A/B switched, line level matched comparisons between my home CD player (which I know to be audibly transparent) and an iPod playing an AIFF file ripped from the CD. Exactly the same.

 

[castleofargh]

 

  Get an iPod. They perform as well as any audiophile player.
 
http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/ipod-touch-5g.htm

I'm looking for more than just measurements,; I'm looking for blind testing. Measurements are great, but in my opinion, they're only part of the story.
 
I was hoping someone could link blind testing between something like the AK vs. iPod vs. Clip vs. Cowon (or any combination of these or other DAPs).

it's not that hard to do, but then what headphone to do the test with? a super sensitive IEM that will make you hear the BZZZ BZZZ of the clip buffering, and the different levels of hiss of an ak(depends what model), and ipod? cowons are usually pretty quiet.
or get some clue about what is what from the impedances changing the signature of something like a SE846?
or some actually hard to drive headphones showing the limits of max volume on some DAPs sooner than on others?
if you really want differences, it's easy to get some with most daps. and once there are some differences, picking the "best" sounding one will be simple. the reason why it's so hard to pretend like one DAP is better, is because with specific needs, the ideal DAP will change. 
in the end the less demanding the headphone, the less important the source. that's what I really believe after trying a few DAPs now. and I'm not saying that in an elite audiophile way, as if you would need great sources to go with great headphones. no I mean that a lot of headphones are a damn bother and force you to change your source to adapt to them.

 

[analogsurviver]

 
it's not that hard to do, but then what headphone to do the test with? a super sensitive IEM that will make you hear the BZZZ BZZZ of the clip buffering, and the different levels of hiss of an ak(depends what model), and ipod? cowons are usually pretty quiet.
or get some clue about what is what from the impedances changing the signature of something like a SE846?
or some actually hard to drive headphones showing the limits of max volume on some DAPs sooner than on others?
if you really want differences, it's easy to get some with most daps. and once there are some differences, picking the "best" sounding one will be simple. the reason why it's so hard to pretend like one DAP is better, is because with specific needs, the ideal DAP will change. 
in the end the less demanding the headphone, the less important the source. that's what I really believe after trying a few DAPs now. and I'm not saying that in an elite audiophile way, as if you would need great sources to go with great headphones. no I mean that a lot of headphones are a damn bother and force you to change your source to adapt to them.

This has been a problem in the not so distant past. Check iFi Audio micro iDSD DAC  -  it can be adapted to ANY headphone out there ( save electrostatics ) - and although it sports > 4000 mW, it is possible to set it up/adjust/adapt even to the most sensitive IEM out there. On the other extreme, it *can* reasonably well power the most innefficient and power hungry earspeakers - the AKG K-1000 . 
 
And it is one of the better/best DACs out there, specially for DSD. 
 
I forgot to say that above is DAC/amp - to be used either with a smartphone on the go or as a part of the desktop computer system at home. I agree that DAPs are a niche product, bound to cost more for the same performance as smartphone + DAC/amp but offering less clutter/cabling. It is highly unlikely that software for any DAP will be as good and as well supported than that for highly competitive and above all incomparably more numerous smartphones. I would not mind an AK 240 myself, but unless it falls out of the blue in my hands I do not see it happening at the current price. Approximately the same level of quality can be had at about half the price with a smartphone and DAC/amp. For HD ( regardless if PCM or DSD) the bottleneck is the current capacity of memory cards - goes both for DAPs and smartphones, as they generally share the same memory cards. I also agree there is little sense for HD on the go in noisy enviroments.

 

[money4me247]

lol i feel like the whole DAP market is sucha niche and waste of time. any mp3 player works fine. or you can even use your smartphone nowadays if you have an external sd card. the two main appeals of a DAP seems pretty insignificant to me. the difference between lossless and 320kbps LAME mp3s isn't very noticeable in a blind ABx test or worth all that extra space for portable usage. if you are really into it fancy equipment, you can easily get a portable amp/dac for much cheaper & you aren't tied down into a >$200+ piece of hardware that gets outdated in a few years. also, stuck with their software and outdated player interface.