[watchnerd]

  Premium cars is not significantly faster than cheaper ones for me

 
On the street?  Or on the track?

 

[KeithEmo]

That makes perfect sense to me.
 
Quote:

   
I would go a step further:
 
The headphone designer voiced the headphone with the supplied cable.
 
If cables *don't* make an audible difference, swapping cables is moot for sound quality reasons.
 
If cables *do* make an audible difference, then you're deviating from the intended voicing and design.
 
Seems like a paradox to me.  Better off just not playing the game.

 

[KeithEmo]

And, at least to me, it's even more problematic when people end up spending a lot of extra money for things that DON'T have any of those benefits, simply because they've been sold on the latest fad. I absolutely unconditionally want to know WHAT I'm spending my money on, so I can decide whether it's worth it or not. (I have very little respect for someone who buys an expensive mechanical watch because he actually believes that it is more accurate than the cheap digital one; and even less for the company that convinces him to believe it.)
  Quote:

   
There is nothing wrong with paying more to get something that is better built, looks cool to you, feels nice, gives you pride of ownership, measures better, and/or is massively over-engineered.  
 
It's when people conflate these attributes with audibly better sound quality that things become problematic.
 
I like to use mechanical watch collecting as an analogy, because that's one of my other hobbies.  Watch collectors buy mechanical watches for many different reasons (history, provenance, craftsmanship, looks, status symbol, etc.).  But Patek Phillipe does not claim that their watches are more accurate than a cheap Casio G-shock or the clock in your cell phone.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

   
On the street?  Or on the track?

I auto reviews I hear discussions like "7.1 second to 100 km/h (60 mph) vs. 7.5 second".

 

[watchnerd]

 
I auto reviews I hear discussions like "7.1 second to 100 km/h (60 mph) vs. 7.5 second".

 
That's not a very premium car if the faster one is only 7.1 seconds.
 
I think auto review magazines are the model that audio magazines should strive for.  They mix actual test data about acceleration, braking, skid-pad G-forces, etc, with subjective comments about the interior and how the ride felt.
 
I *wish* more audio reviews had that much data.

 

[watchnerd]

 

And, at least to me, it's even more problematic when people end up spending a lot of extra money for things that DON'T have any of those benefits, simply because they've been sold on the latest fad.

 
See my comment regarding superfluous re-clocking devices.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

   
That's not a very premium car if the faster one is only 7.1 seconds.
 
I think auto review magazines are the model that audio magazines should strive for.  They mix actual test data about acceleration, braking, skid-pad G-forces, etc, with subjective comments about the interior and how the ride felt.
 
I *wish* more audio reviews had that much data.

I'd like more detailed measurements with subjective perceptions.
 
Of course, perceptions should be written before measurements are done.
 
For modern hi-fi design and usability is important part too, in my opinion.

 

[watchnerd]

 
Of course, perceptions should be written before measurements are done.
 

 
Because you think the measurements will taint the listening results?
 
I'm sure they will.  But would that be a good or bad thing for consumers?

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

   
Because you think the measurements will taint the listening results?

 
Absolutelly. Known price, exterior of tested device too.
 

  I'm sure they will.  But would that be a good or bad thing for consumers?

 
Useful test results contains many figures. As example, right in my opinion, TDH should be measured across full band including ultrasound. Dynamic range may be measured different ways. Etc.
 
But analysis of results may be realy complicate without special knowledges, because there are many details.
 
However, sometimes we can see these figures. As example, I like Archimago's blog http://archimago.blogspot.ru

 

[watchnerd]

 
However, sometimes we can see these figures. As example, I like Archimago's blog http://archimago.blogspot.ru

 
Yes, I agree.
 
Archimago is one of the best.  He is doing a great job.

 

[pioferro]

   
There is nothing wrong with paying more to get something that is better built, looks cool to you, feels nice, gives you pride of ownership, measures better, and/or is massively over-engineered.  
 
It's when people conflate these attributes with audibly better sound quality that things become problematic.
 
I like to use mechanical watch collecting as an analogy, because that's one of my other hobbies.  Watch collectors buy mechanical watches for many different reasons (history, provenance, craftsmanship, looks, status symbol, etc.).  But Patek Phillipe does not claim that their watches are more accurate than a cheap Casio G-shock or the clock in your cell phone.

So very well said!

 

[teb1013]

There is nothing wrong with paying more to get something that is better built, looks cool to you, feels nice, gives you pride of ownership, measures better, and/or is massively over-engineered.  

It's when people conflate these attributes with audibly better sound quality that things become problematic.

I like to use mechanical watch collecting as an analogy, because that's one of my other hobbies.  Watch collectors buy mechanical watches for many different reasons (history, provenance, craftsmanship, looks, status symbol, etc.).  But Patek Phillipe does not claim that their watches are more accurate than a cheap Casio G-shock or the clock in your cell phone.

The watch analysis is perfect. My Rolex Datejust and Tudor Black Bay both keep great time, for a mechanical watch. I went out of my way to get an excellent quartz watch, a Grand Seiko, which is beautiful and absolutely accurate, but it doesn't tell better time than my iphone or my sons Apple Watch. The fact is, I get some intangible pleasure out of these things. I guess i could say the same thing about my tube amp or my Senn HD 600 headphones, except I do think, no know, that there is a difference in sound that even I with my somewhat deteriorated hearing can appreciate. I have a Senn HD558 which I like but there is no question that they sound better. I have never been able to tell expensive cables from cheap ones. Some will undoubtedly claim that it's because my relatively cheap tube equipment or my comparatively cheap HD600s aren't good enough to "tell the difference" my lousy ears too. I guess it's the law of diminishing returns, I have a level at which each thing I have reaches the upper level I am willing to spend.

 

[StanD]

@KeithEmo Based on your description of the stock cable, I'll ask, did you get an HE-500?

 

[KeithEmo]

This was a while ago, and I think it was the HE-400 (the original one - before there were variations).
I ended up salvaging the connectors from the original cable and building my own out of Canare StarQuad cable (which is nice and soft and flexible - and costs about 50 cents a foot).
 
 
Quote:

  @KeithEmo Based on your description of the stock cable, I'll ask, did you get an HE-500?

 

[StanD]

 
This was a while ago, and I think it was the HE-400 (the original one - before there were variations).
I ended up salvaging the connectors from the original cable and building my own out of Canare StarQuad cable (which is nice and soft and flexible - and costs about 50 cents a foot).

Amongst my cans are a pair pf HE-500's. I thought they were the only ones that Hifiman made that came with a stiff microphonic cable made of twisted Teflon insulated silver wire. Silver or copper I don't care, however, the ergonomics suck. I really like the HE-500's, yes I have a strong weight bearing neck.