[nanaholic]

Of course, audio must be pleasing to the listener, but high fidelity (remember that old term?) is self-descriptive as to its goal - it is to reproduce faithfully. If a headphone fails to do so, it is by definition not high fidelity, and the reviewer's obligation is to say so.

Again, then please tell me why reviewers often recommend expensive vinyl setups and tube amps that is, by the same definition, not high fidelity? Especially in light of new, better and cheap technology such as CDs, digital downloads and solid state amps.

Thus far nobody can explain why the most common finger pointing are towards headphones. And I think it would be fair to say that any site that gives poor reviews to headphones such as the Z1R for not being high fidelity and thus not worth the price while praising expensive tube amps and vinyl setups in the next breath are engaging in some serious double standards. If you recongnise thise, then the term high fidelity is in fact pretty meaningless in the audio world at large because A LOT of gear would have to be thrown out, and many people's highly cherished gear that used to receive high glowing review would then have to be labelled "bad".

High fidelity is actually a very misleading term, it's just a term to put an objective spin on mostly a subjective preference in this hobby the majority of the time in recent years. Maybe several decades ago when achieving high fidelity was actually difficult it makes sense (such as with tube amps!), but now a days? Out dated and often abused IMO.

 

[Beagle]

I disagree with this. One purpose of a reviewer/critic is to distinguish good from bad, and point people towards one and away from the other. Of course, audio must be pleasing to the listener, but high fidelity (remember that old term?) is self-descriptive as to its goal - it is to reproduce faithfully. If a headphone fails to do so, it is by definition not high fidelity, and the reviewer's obligation is to say so. To do otherwise is an abrogation of responsibility.

What if everybody disagrees with that reviewer and loves the product he trashed?

Again, then please tell me why reviewers often recommend expensive vinyl setups and tube amps that is, by the same definition, not high fidelity? Especially in light of new, better and cheap technology such as CDs, digital downloads and solid state amps.

Usually because they sound enjoyable and musical. But it seems many aren't really fascinated by music, they are fascinated by gear and how it measures. Only use they have for music is to test that gear with.

 

[Sonic Defender]

Well, that is why head-fi is actually a community. I have been getting well wishes and nice PM messages here so I think that sums up head-fi, a nice place to spend time with other enthusiasts. I have been treated so well by people here that it is unbelievable, seriously, this place really is a community. We sometimes squabble and don't agree, but the level of respect is fantastic.

 

[Sonic Defender]

I have decided it is best to be more private about what I write for the sake of others. I also don't want to stir the vitriol up further so removed the content of this post and wanted to say thanks again people.

 

[JimL11]

Again, then please tell me why reviewers often recommend expensive vinyl setups and tube amps that is, by the same definition, not high fidelity? Especially in light of new, better and cheap technology such as CDs, digital downloads and solid state amps.

Thus far nobody can explain why the most common finger pointing are towards headphones. And I think it would be fair to say that any site that gives poor reviews to headphones such as the Z1R for not being high fidelity and thus not worth the price while praising expensive tube amps and vinyl setups in the next breath are engaging in some serious double standards. If you recongnise thise, then the term high fidelity is in fact pretty meaningless in the audio world at large because A LOT of gear would have to be thrown out, and many people's highly cherished gear that used to receive high glowing review would then have to be labelled "bad".

High fidelity is actually a very misleading term, it's just a term to put an objective spin on mostly a subjective preference in this hobby the majority of the time in recent years. Maybe several decades ago when achieving high fidelity was actually difficult it makes sense (such as with tube amps!), but now a days? Out dated and often abused IMO.

So are you saying that you agree with the previous poster that there is no truth? Or are you saying that you have the truth, and that vinyl and tube amps are "by definition, not high fidelity?" Because clearly, there are some people who believe that vinyl and tube amps reproduce the sound of music better than CDs and solid state, and there are others who believe otherwise. And as far as I know, InnerFidelity hasn't reviewed vinyl rigs or CD players at all. Stereophile lists both vinyl and CD players, solid state and tube amps, in their recommended components lists. This means that reviewers there find components of both types to approach high standards of music reproduction. So if a reviewer recommends a vinyl rig in one issue, and a CD player in another, a tube amp in one issue and a solid state amp in another, then is that reviewer right one time and wrong the other. Or could it be that music reproduction is a multidimensional thing and vinyl does some things better, CD does other things better, tubes do some things better and solid state other things better? And I see that you have a Woo tube amp in your system. Shame on you for having such a low fidelity device! (BTW, my system is tubed also, and I think it does a great job of REPRODUCING music).

 

[JimL11]

What if everybody disagrees with that reviewer and loves the product he trashed?.

Well, first of all, that is clearly not true. People on this thread are fans of the Sony, generally speaking (I have no personal opinion as I've never so much as laid eyes on one), but not everyone is. And that is a general statement that is true of pretty much any transducer you can name, whether highly reviewed or not. Nothing is universally loved. For example, the Quad ESL-57 is generally considered one of the greatest speakers ever made, but they sold less than 100,000 of them, and there are millions of speakers out there. But if your statement were true, it would mean that the reviewer was wrong. So? Sometimes reviewers are wrong. The reason that reviewers are respected is that they have a wider and broader experience than most of the rest of us, they have the ability to put what they hear into good descriptive language, and they have a consistent approach which they make clear to the reader. I'm quite certain that Tyll has heard more headphones than most of the people here on Head-Fi, he is able to describe what he hears and he has a consistent approach. That gives his opinion credibility. But, that doesn't make him infallible, nor, I am certain, would he claim to be so.

Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is considered a great piece of music, but not everyone likes it, including some very distinguished musicians and critics. Such is life. People like what they buy, and so they tend to take offense if someone else says they made a poor choice. But look at from the other viewpoint - if you bought something you didn't like, just because some reviewer liked it, you would be a moron. And if you like your Sony, what do you care what other people think? The sufficient defense for buying something is, "I like how it sounds, and I can afford it."

 

[nordkapp]

@JimL11-you seem educated and reasonably articulate in your argument, but with all due respect, trying to defend Tyll's Z1R review without actually even laying eyes on them seems naive, foolish and diminishes your rationalization. That said, yes I fully understand your points. But as you stated, "sometimes reviewers are wrong"........

 

[up late]

Correction: I portray them as if there is no scientific consensus for a frequency response target to model accuracy, which I believe if you peel back all the layers from all the discussion here, is what some people are assuming regarding what frequency response graphs tell them.

Dr Olive's research for the Harman curve "objectively analyzed subjective responses" yes, and the key term in that is: subjective responses. Harman International's research was centered on the desire to sell audio equipment. They wanted to target listener preferences that would reach the widest audience. So they researched what frequency response would give them the highest preference among listeners. They don't care if the music is accurate, they want people to enjoy themselves. In that way, they don't care if they distort the music, as long as it is distorted in such a way that the most people like the sound.

You'll also note that some of the best selling most popular audio equipment sold these days are Beats headphones and Bose speakers. Just sayin'.

If someone is truly chasing accuracy above musical enjoyment - such that it doesn't matter if you want to pour bleach in your ears after listening as long as what you hear matches the artist's intention - the Harman curve is one of the worst frequency response targets to use, because the fundamental basis for it isn't accuracy, but rather people's enjoyment.

So you can see why it is a bit ironic for people to be acosting fans of the Z1R for distorting the artist's intention, while putting the Harman curve on a pedestal of musical accuracy.

Your comparison of frequency response targets to medical trials I think is revealing of a fundamental misunderstanding of frequency response targets. People who follow objective measurements of headphones seem to want to equate things like the Harman curve to the theory of gravity, such that people who deny the Harman curve are akin to flat earthers. But the Harman curve is not like the theory of gravity, it is like a recipe for an omlette. If you averaged people's taste, and wanted to sell a good tasting omlette to the most people, you would have some standard ingredients mixed in a standard way. The Harman curve encapsulates that recipe for audio.

But if someone prefers red chili flakes in their omlette, that doesn't make their recipe "wrong", or "inaccurate".

Yes, you can use words like "science" and "objectivity" to describe the theory of gravity, clinical trials, and headphone measurements. But the expressive power of your conclusions in each area is not the same, and each has a unique frame of reference for the science that needs to be understood, especially before people enter a thread like this and start calling things "flawed".

again, it has been acknowledged by tyll hertsen himself that there is currently no consensus, scientfific or otherwise, on a headphone frequency response target curve and that headphone measurements are still in their infancy even relative to loudspeaker measurements. however, that doesn't make dr sean olive's research any less valid or worthwhile.　　

disparaging his research on the grounds that he and his team are employed by harman intternational, which is also providing the resources for them to conduct it is a straw man argument, but i'll address it anyway. returning to the medical research analogy, public/private partnerships have enabled research to be undertaken that otherwise would not have been due to a lack of available public funding. this arrangement doesn't by definition compromise the validity of the research or its findings. pharmaceutical companies fund medical research which they hope to profit from but that doesn't invalidate the results. similarly, harman international would hope to profit from its investment in dr olive's research which is understandable, but it doesn't follow that his motives, methodology and research findings have been compromised as a consequence. 　　

i think it's more a case of you failing to grasp what i posted earlier and the point of the clinical trial analogy, than me fundamentally misunderstanding what a headphone frequency response target curve represents tbh. the subjective responses of the participants in dr olive's tests and in clinical trials yield results which can lead to objective standards. that doesn't mean that they will not be subject to further review and revision over time. scientific research doesn't stand still, just ask any gravitational physicist. 　　

your characterisation of folks who take an interest in headphone measurements and trivialisation of headphone frequency response curves is hysterical. and now you're likening the harman target response curve to an omelette - i mean, really?　

with regard to the debate over "the artist's intention", well i'll leave that for others to have but the irony, or more appropriately the contradiction that you refer to isn't apparent to me. and as james444's post (#10972) has already addressed your (bolded) assertions, I think i'll leave it there.

 

[JimL11]

@JimL11-you seem educated and reasonably articulate in your argument, but with all due respect, trying to defend Tyll's Z1R review without actually even laying eyes on them seems naive, foolish and diminishes your rationalization. That said, yes I fully understand your points. But as you stated, "sometimes reviewers are wrong"........

No, I think you're missing my main point. it seems that a number of posters are saying that a reviewer shouldn't say something bad about a piece of equipment (or more specifically, about THEIR piece of equipment), whereas I am saying that it is in fact a reviewer's duty to do so, if that is his or her considered opinion. That is one of the primary purposes of a review, to sort the good from the bad, in the reviewer's opinion.

To put it another way, I am defending the principle that a reviewer should state the good and bad of a piece of equipment including his overall opinion, and I am using Tyll's review as a hypothetical example. That principle does not depend on whether I have seen or heard the Z1R, as I am neither defending nor defaming the Z1R, but rather defending Tyll's right and responsibility to give his opinion. I don't think that defending that principle is either naive or foolish. Is that clear?

I will note that it is interesting that many audiophiles complain that reviewers never say anything bad about a piece of equipment, and then when a reviewer says something bad about THEIR piece of equipment, they complain bitterly. Again, such is life.

 

[Currawong]

I disagree with this. One purpose of a reviewer/critic is to distinguish good from bad, and point people towards one and away from the other. Of course, audio must be pleasing to the listener, but high fidelity (remember that old term?) is self-descriptive as to its goal - it is to reproduce faithfully. If a headphone fails to do so, it is by definition not high fidelity, and the reviewer's obligation is to say so. To do otherwise is an abrogation of responsibility. After all, one major reason for a reviewer's existence is to sift through a large market and identify items that are worthy of attention. And with a good and experienced reviewer, the reader can compare their tastes with his or hers and decide whether to accept or discount their conclusions.

That doesn't mean that a listener, or group of listeners, might not prefer inaccuracy - after all, we all have heard (suffered) people listening to their car audios at high volume, turning their cars into subwoofers that blast everyone within a city block. Obviously they like it, as much as it may afflict the rest of us. A critic saying it is bad will not dissuade someone who likes that sound from listening to, or buying it. In fact, as long as said critic describes the sound accurately, it may actually lead some people to buy it because that's what they like.

Finally, in a way you are contradicting yourself, because first you say it's bad that Tyll said they were bad, but then you admit they were too flawed for you to buy a pair.

I didn't contradict myself, because my opinions are not overly simplistic. My issue is not separating out personal opinion from absolute judgements on whether something is "good" or "bad". Let me explain.

Simplistic thinking is along the lines of:

The headphones sound good to me = The headphones are good.
The headphones sound bad to me = The headphones are bad.

or:

The headphones meet some objective criteria (target curve, distortion levels, etc.) = The headphones are good.
The headphones don't meet those criteria = The headphones are bad.

Now Tyll doesn't like how they sound, and feels that they measure poorly (relatively) so he doesn't recommend them. I totally get that. What I think he may not recognise is why many people like them, and for many people they will be a "good" pair of high-end headphones.

Why? A non-Sony example might be a good idea here.

Some time ago I had a PM conversation with someone who was fanatical in how they felt that modern headphones didn't reproduce instruments "as the artist intended". Not an unreasonable feeling considering he plays an instrument himself. A point I made to him though was this: How about V-MODA headphones? I'm sure he would absolutely not like them and think they were awful, but does that mean that they are bad? The first time Val had me listen to the M-80, I didn't like the tuning. Later on, he put the Crossfade LPs on my head, and put on some club music at a slightly high volume. Then I got it. Club music is intended to be played in a club, and the Crossfade LPs were designed to sound like "a club in your head". In that, they succeed greatly, and are now are very popular amongst DJs as they produce club music "as the artist intended". So by the logic of the person I was having the discussion with, they are "good" headphones.

So, let's take a couple of simple statements:

Crossfade LPs are good headphones.
Crossfade LPs are bad headphones.

which is it?

Let's make a couple more:

Crossfade LPs are good headphones for people who like club music.
Crossfade LPs are bad headphones for people who like classical music.

Now if we add measurements in there they are also objectively poor headphones in many respects, and we can start generating multiple statements about good and bad which are all true, but will seem to contradict each other if you only focus the "good" or "bad" without seeing the context.

That's the difference between:

These are good/bad headphones.
I think these are good/bad headphones because of X, Y and Z.

I think Tyll's summary is missing two words. I also think that only having technical fidelity as the bar for high-end headphones will result in a lot of expensive headphones that all sound the same. I know quite a few people who don't like many headphones that I (and, going by his reviews, Tyll) think are great. It is something to consider.

 

[Maelob]

For those that agree with Tyll, what are your top 3 closed cans over 1k? Just curious

 

[JimL11]

@JimL11-you seem educated and reasonably articulate in your argument, but with all due respect, trying to defend Tyll's Z1R review without actually even laying eyes on them seems naive, foolish and diminishes your rationalization. That said, yes I fully understand your points. But as you stated, "sometimes reviewers are wrong"........

I didn't contradict myself, because my opinions are not overly simplistic. My issue is not separating out personal opinion from absolute judgements on whether something is "good" or "bad". Let me explain.

Simplistic thinking is along the lines of:

The headphones sound good to me = The headphones are good.
The headphones sound bad to me = The headphones are bad.

or:

The headphones meet some objective criteria (target curve, distortion levels, etc.) = The headphones are good.
The headphones don't meet those criteria = The headphones are bad.

Now Tyll doesn't like how they sound, and feels that they measure poorly (relatively) so he doesn't recommend them. I totally get that. What I think he may not recognise is why many people like them, and for many people they will be a "good" pair of high-end headphones.

Why? A non-Sony example might be a good idea here.

Some time ago I had a PM conversation with someone who was fanatical in how they felt that modern headphones didn't reproduce instruments "as the artist intended". Not an unreasonable feeling considering he plays an instrument himself. A point I made to him though was this: How about V-MODA headphones? I'm sure he would absolutely not like them and think they were awful, but does that mean that they are bad? The first time Val had me listen to the M-80, I didn't like the tuning. Later on, he put the Crossfade LPs on my head, and put on some club music at a slightly high volume. Then I got it. Club music is intended to be played in a club, and the Crossfade LPs were designed to sound like "a club in your head". In that, they succeed greatly, and are now are very popular amongst DJs as they produce club music "as the artist intended". So by the logic of the person I was having the discussion with, they are "good" headphones.

So, let's take a couple of simple statements:

Crossfade LPs are good headphones.
Crossfade LPs are bad headphones.

which is it?

Let's make a couple more:

Crossfade LPs are good headphones for people who like club music.
Crossfade LPs are bad headphones for people who like classical music.

Now if we add measurements in there they are also objectively poor headphones in many respects, and we can start generating multiple statements about good and bad which are all true, but will seem to contradict each other if you only focus the "good" or "bad" without seeing the context.

That's the difference between:

These are good/bad headphones.
I think these are good/bad headphones because of X, Y and Z.

I think Tyll's summary is missing two words. I also think that only having technical fidelity as the bar for high-end headphones will result in a lot of expensive headphones that all sound the same. I know quite a few people who don't like many headphones that I (and, going by his reviews, Tyll) think are great. It is something to consider.

Fair enough. Does remind me of the debate about "East coast speaker sound" (AR, KLH, Advent) vs "West coast speaker sound" (JBL) back in the 1960s and 70s, or classical music speakers vs. popular music speakers. But what about people who like all kinds of music? Do they buy different phones for different genres?

 

[nc8000]

Fair enough. Does remind me of the debate about "East coast speaker sound" (AR, KLH, Advent) vs "West coast speaker sound" (JBL) back in the 1960s and 70s, or classical music speakers vs. popular music speakers. But what about people who like all kinds of music? Do they buy different phones for different genres?

Or the concept of the English sound versus the Japanese or European sound.

Yes many actually do. The one phone to rule all for everything does not exist

 

[Imperfectionist]

No, I think you're missing my main point. it seems that a number of posters are saying that a reviewer shouldn't say something bad about a piece of equipment (or more specifically, about THEIR piece of equipment), whereas I am saying that it is in fact a reviewer's duty to do so, if that is his or her considered opinion. That is one of the primary purposes of a review, to sort the good from the bad, in the reviewer's opinion.

To put it another way, I am defending the principle that a reviewer should state the good and bad of a piece of equipment including his overall opinion, and I am using Tyll's review as a hypothetical example. That principle does not depend on whether I have seen or heard the Z1R, as I am neither defending nor defaming the Z1R, but rather defending Tyll's right and responsibility to give his opinion. I don't think that defending that principle is either naive or foolish. Is that clear?

I will note that it is interesting that many audiophiles complain that reviewers never say anything bad about a piece of equipment, and then when a reviewer says something bad about THEIR piece of equipment, they complain bitterly. Again, such is life.

A reviewer can never be impartial if that person is already biased against certain sound signatures, or is that the new standard for impartiality?

 

[nanaholic]

So are you saying that you agree with the previous poster that there is no truth? Or are you saying that you have the truth, and that vinyl and tube amps are "by definition, not high fidelity?" Because clearly, there are some people who believe that vinyl and tube amps reproduce the sound of music better than CDs and solid state, and there are others who believe otherwise.

There is an objective truth, but the issue is that sometimes (often?) people confuse their subjective opinion as objective truth.

Vinyl is objectively inferior to CDs, and more recently even higher resolution file formats. This is objectively, scientifically true. But that is completely separate from people's subjective enjoy of the format. Of course, there are many people who prefer the sound of vinyl for various reasons - stating it is "warmer" (which is often the result of the very inherit distortion of the format, rather than it being superior), more "organic" (often because of poor modern day mixing and recording practices eg the loudness war - again nothing to do with the superiority of the format).

For tube amps, they are cost performance poor because it is incredibly difficult to make a linear tube amp compared to a solid state amp. Also tubes tends to have higher harmonic distortions then solid state amps. These are the objective facts. Again, nothing to do with people's subjective preferences for their sound quality.

Note that if you use the very narrow high fidelity definition you have stated ("faithful reproduction of sound"), then both vinyl and tubes actually fails to measure up against newer technology and gear, especially in the price/performance area. Yet, many of the audiophile community will not give up these gears until you prey them from their cold dead hands. Yet constantly when it comes to headphones that standard suddenly goes out the window - if you are applying the same criticism for, say, a headphone must have low distortion to be worth buying, then no one can then objectively recommend a tube amp over a solid state amp. Yet we don't see that happen often (or at all). All I'm advocating is that reviewers and community members (not referring to anyone in particular) should be aware and be consistent in applying their criteria. And as I said again and again, don't let me ever see someone saying they bought a HD800 for its superior measurements only to plug it into a tube amp, while in the next breath puts down people for buying a phone such as Z1R that "doesn't measure well" - that's just masking your subjective preference as fake objectivity. Which is what I find the most dishonest practice when it comes to people reviewing gear.

And as far as I know, InnerFidelity hasn't reviewed vinyl rigs or CD players at all.

They have a Wall of Fame of tube amps, some going up to several grand per unit. Strangely no measurement for any of those amps, makes you go hmm? So again, a clear case of applying double standards - using pure subjectivity to review one component of the chain, while then applying a different criteria in headphones.

But also to be completely fair, those devices are not often reviewed by Tyll either, but he did review some too.

This means that reviewers there find components of both types to approach high standards of music reproduction.

Using the same critical criteria for the measurement crowds and applying it equally here - show the measurements to prove it actually approach that high standard. Else it's just a subjective preference.

Or could it be that music reproduction is a multidimensional thing and vinyl does some things better, CD does other things better, tubes do some things better and solid state other things better?

Nope - for vinyls and tubes, even the most capable system they almost certainly objectively does worse in measurements compared to correctly implemented CDs and solid state amps when it comes to all the objectively measurement criteria.

And I see that you have a Woo tube amp in your system. Shame on you for having such a low fidelity device! (BTW, my system is tubed also, and I think it does a great job of REPRODUCING music).

See that's the thing - I never claim to be buy or review my gear based on objective measurements or what constitutes as high fidelity. I recognise that my taste is purely subjective, and for not one second I try to masked that subjective preference with pesudo-objectivity, which is a scaryingly common sight amongst reviews I see around on the internet, unfortunately.

I just like to hold others to the same standards and hate seeing that person who goes around and tell others they are ignorant for buying a poorly measuring headphone has other equally "poor" equipment in their stash, which strangely is actually quite a few of them around on the internet.