[Currawong]

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.

That's not true. I don't want to derail the thread over it, so I'm going to suggest asking someone who actually designs tube amps to set you straight about it, such as Pete Millet. In summary though, the coloration in tube amps is most often deliberate.

 

[kman1211]

That's not true. I don't want to derail the thread over it, so I'm going to suggest asking someone who actually designs tube amps to set you straight about it, such as Pete Millet. In summary though, the coloration in tube amps is most often deliberate.

That's true. Honestly would be nice if more people actually tried to seek knowledge from those who actually have a deep understanding and esoteric knowledge of the subject. There's always more to learn about essentially anything and sometimes one's ideas and understanding of a subject can fall apart as one learns more. New knowledge may require one to restructure and reevaluate their whole belief system and understanding of the subject. I've gone through this process numerous times in this hobby alone.

 

[nanaholic]

That's not true. I don't want to derail the thread over it, so I'm going to suggest asking someone who actually designs tube amps to set you straight about it, such as Pete Millet. In summary though, the coloration in tube amps is most often deliberate.

No it is true, as I'm using the objective performance for what an ideal perfect amp should do (ie amplify a signal with NO distortion, at all), in which case it is an engineering fact that it is much cheaper and easier to build a SS amp that approaches this goal of reaching near perfect linearity than a tube amp (not saying a tube amp can't do it, but it's just harder, which means more complexity which also means more expensive). You mentioning desirable distortion just means the same thing with tuning headphone for flavouring, which is then going back into subjectivity of what makes a pleasant/non-offensive sound. A Fiio solid state amp that cost 50 dollars absolutely measures flat with very little distortion for its given frequency range, but it says nothing about how people enjoying its sonic quantity subjectively.

Again I'm just trying to point out that for some people who seem so dead set on rating performance on objective measurements for headphones but don't seem to hold the same for other parts of the chain is applying double standards, I'm not actually advocating people go and burn "bad measuring" equipment or anything like that, rather I just want people to be aware of this and be more consistent in applying their standards, rather than uncharacteristically focusing on ripping apart headphones.

 

[greggf]

Why are headphone amps so seldom measured?

One exception was the PASS HPA-1, which got a clean bill of health from John Atkinson and is apparently used by Herb Reichert (and me) with the Z1R.

Are the amps not measured because reviewers are buddy-buddy with the DIY crowd that make the most hideously expensive ones? Do reviewers protect the smaller or one-person headphone and amp makers? Is that all this is, this controversy, buddyism? Cronyism? Favoring headphones that come from faces you know versus professional corporate marketers?

Are reviewers biased against Senn, AKG, Beyerdynamic, and Sony? Go look at IF and tell me. You can't tell me that "MasterEarplugs", run out of an aluminum garage behind the closed strip mall by two guys in tshirts, can engineer headphones the way Sony or Beyerdynamic can.

Do the smaller companies that have no engineering to speak of end up with the approved, "Harman" sound because they CAN'T come up with the more creative-looking measurements and sounds the way the biggies can? Are some reviewers romanced by the DIY notion that "I can do a better job than AKG!" when it comes to headphones or amps?

What would Woo amp measurements look like? Non-STAX STAX amps? That sort of thing. Am I missing these amp measurements?

 

[Undertones]

I'm not going to respond to anyone else because it's not worth responding to people being obtuse. They've got a vendetta and until Tyll does a 180° turn and praises the headphone to validate their purchase they won't ever be happy. The amount of mischaracterizations I have seen in this thread as well as the amount of veiled petty spite is disappointing. It's just headphones after all but I guess it's their $2500 headphones on the line.

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.

The end conclusion of your philosophy is that you destroy even the concept of high-end in the first place. If the Sony headphones do not display good technical fidelity then why should I pay $2500 for them. What is justifying that price tag when there are plenty of other good headphones like the TH-X00 that are much cheaper. The assumption of better technical fidelity is the bedrock of people being willing to spend large amounts of money on headphones in the first place and without that there can be no high-end. Start telling people that their $2500 headphone lacks technical ability and they'll tell you that you're wrong. It costs $2500 after all. It has to be better than a TH-X00 because it costs several times as much.

It's clear that your philosophy on reviews is very different to Tyll. I guess the viewership and success of Tyll as a reviewer goes to show how many people agree with his philosophy that expensive headphones should display technical ability to justify purchasing them. It's their money after all.

 

[Imperfectionist]

I'm not going to respond to anyone else because it's not worth responding to people being obtuse. They've got a vendetta and until Tyll does a 180° turn and praises the headphone to validate their purchase they won't ever be happy. The amount of mischaracterizations I have seen in this thread as well as the amount of veiled petty spite is disappointing. It's just headphones after all but I guess it's their $2500 headphones on the line.



The end conclusion of your philosophy is that you destroy even the concept of high-end in the first place. If the Sony headphones do not display good technical fidelity then why should I pay $2500 for them. What is justifying that price tag when there are plenty of other good headphones like the TH-X00 that are much cheaper. The assumption of better technical fidelity is the bedrock of people being willing to spend large amounts of money on headphones in the first place and without that there can be no high-end. Start telling people that their $2500 headphone lacks technical ability and they'll tell you that you're wrong. It costs $2500 after all. It has to be better than a TH-X00 because it costs several times as much.

It's clear that your philosophy on reviews is very different to Tyll. I guess the viewership and success of Tyll as a reviewer goes to show how many people agree with his philosophy that expensive headphones should display technical ability to justify purchasing them. It's their money after all.

There is only a few that are being obtuse and you are one of them.
You mentioned that a reviewer should be impartial right? Because that will give the most accurate review?
But Tyll doesn't like certain sound signatures and we all know it. He conducted his review with that bias in mind. So can we say he is impartial on his review?
I do not care what you say about my z1r even though you are bashing it without having listened to it . Nor do I care about what Tyll said.
To me, its $2599 well spent and I enjoy it.
We who enjoyed the z1r aren't the ones bashing a headphone because someone said so in a review. Lol.

 

[Sonic Defender]

... If the Sony headphones do not display good technical fidelity then why should I pay $2500 for them.

Sigh, nobody is paying $2500 for the headphone, or even close in many cases and not to mention who said the Z1R doesn't display good technical fidelity? I think that it is obvious that they do, just not exactingly perfect, but they most certainly have very good ability, they just do so with a very particular sound signature. Yes, I'm sure people, myself included do get their backs up a little when something they like is criticized, that is human nature, but that doesn't invalidate their subsequent points simply on merit. I would suggest that the same would happen with any headphone and not just with those who own the Z1R. I think it is also a function of how much many owners like their Z1R that they react the way they do. Anyway, I won't waste more of the collective community consciousness posting on this matter anymore, personally, I think enough has been said on the subject from me. To conclude, the Z1R is a headphone that I paid the most money I have ever paid for a headphone, I thought it was a cracking good sounding headphone (yes it wasn't perfect) and I am really glad that I had the opportunity to enjoy it. Cheers.

 

[greggf]

Undertones asks, "If the Sony headphones do not display good technical fidelity then why should I pay $2500 for them?"

1) They DO display good technical ability, even by Tyll's assessment, even if Tyll's measurement capability is off or biased. See his measurements of the $2100 STAX 007, which are eerily similar to the Z1R, as "Bill-P" says elsewhere.

2) "If the Sony headphones do not display good technical fidelity then why should I pay $2500 for them?" Even if true, which it isn't, you should pay $2500 for them FOR PLEASURE. FOR THE WAY THEY SOUND. They are headphones, not electrocardiograph machines.

Why are people offended at $2200 headphones that sound orgasmic? Why do they want headphones that make them feel broke but virtuous?

It's like having a heart attack, but telling the emergency room physicians, "Yeah, I may be in terrible pain and dying, but at least my cholesterol is under 200!"

 

[up late]

Why are headphone amps so seldom measured?

One exception was the PASS HPA-1, which got a clean bill of health from John Atkinson and is apparently used by Herb Reichert (and me) with the Z1R.

Are the amps not measured because reviewers are buddy-buddy with the DIY crowd that make the most hideously expensive ones? Do reviewers protect the smaller or one-person headphone and amp makers? Is that all this is, this controversy, buddyism? Cronyism? Favoring headphones that come from faces you know versus professional corporate marketers?

Are reviewers biased against Senn, AKG, Beyerdynamic, and Sony? Go look at IF and tell me. You can't tell me that "MasterEarplugs", run out of an aluminum garage behind the closed strip mall by two guys in tshirts, can engineer headphones the way Sony or Beyerdynamic can.

Do the smaller companies that have no engineering to speak of end up with the approved, "Harman" sound because they CAN'T come up with the more creative-looking measurements and sounds the way the biggies can? Are some reviewers romanced by the DIY notion that "I can do a better job than AKG!" when it comes to headphones or amps?

What would Woo amp measurements look like? Non-STAX STAX amps? That sort of thing. Am I missing these amp measurements?

you'll find head amp measurements at innerfidelity if you're interested, which would be unexpected to say the least based on your previous posts. oh, and they have been taken by tyll. thought I should mention that.

 

[daddyo1973]

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.

Excellent response and example illustrating simple/absolute statements without context...+1 for that.

 

[nordkapp]

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

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.

I believe this single post should end this entire debate guys. @Currawong - hands down my favorite reviewer. Great stuff as always!

 

[nordkapp]

Undertones asks, "If the Sony headphones do not display good technical fidelity then why should I pay $2500 for them?"

1) They DO display good technical ability, even by Tyll's assessment, even if Tyll's measurement capability is off or biased. See his measurements of the $2100 STAX 007, which are eerily similar to the Z1R, as "Bill-P" says elsewhere.

2) "If the Sony headphones do not display good technical fidelity then why should I pay $2500 for them?" Even if true, which it isn't, you should pay $2500 for them FOR PLEASURE. FOR THE WAY THEY SOUND. They are headphones, not electrocardiograph machines.

Why are people offended at $2200 headphones that sound orgasmic? Why do they want headphones that make them feel broke but virtuous?

It's like having a heart attack, but telling the emergency room physicians, "Yeah, I may be in terrible pain and dying, but at least my cholesterol is under 200!"

GENIUS-again! Lol.

 

[JimL11]

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

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.


Well, as Currawong pointed out, this really belongs on another thread, but to answer very briefly, triode tubes are more linear than transistors as voltage amplifiers, that is an objective fact. I would also mention that I designed/modified the SRX Plus, based on a 1970s Stax all tube design, and based on user comments it is at the same subjective level as some of the Kevin Gilmore designs at a lower parts cost. So much for tubes always cost more.

I believe the people who coined the phrase high fidelity meant, to quote Quad's slogan, "for the closest approach to the original sound." That takes in much more than flat frequency response and low distortion, although those are important factors, because a warped frequency response produces a colored sound.

 

[JimL11]

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

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

Yes, and one thing I forgot to mention in my previous post, was that those debates were active back in the 1970s, but not so today. Why? Because by and large, modern speakers no longer exhibit those sound qualities. They tend to be more neutral, more "colorless" than speakers of that era. Maybe they are more "boring" to use Amo's term. And, unlike headphones, most people do not buy multiple pairs of speakers to listen to depending on their mood. Some of that is driven by Toole's and Olive's research, which showed that speakers with flat frequency response were also also the most subjectively pleasing (and hence likely to sell). As Toole's analogy put it, viewing a picture under white light is more pleasing to more people than viewing it under colored lights. So, my guess is, the headphone market will eventually move the same way, driven by the same forces as the speaker market.

So, my argument is two-fold. 1) a reviewer's job is to describe the sound of a component, and make a judgment about it. If he doesn't feel it does a good job, or if he feels it is overprice, he should say so. 2) a reviewer should be biased against ANY sound signature (colored light) in favor of NO sound signature (white light), as best they can judge it. Because, that gives the best chance of REPRODUCING what the artist intended. That is obviously, and inherently, a subjective judgment, and objective measurements are, at best, only supportive, not definitive. But, as I mentioned in a previous post, there does seem to be broad general subjective agreement on various headphone's and speaker's deviations from the ideal. If you want your headphones to produce YOUR version of the music that's your right. I prefer headphones that come closest to reproducing the musician's version of the music. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Beagle]

I'm not going to respond to anyone else because it's not worth responding to people being obtuse. They've got a vendetta and until Tyll does a 180° turn and praises the headphone to validate their purchase they won't ever be happy. The amount of mischaracterizations I have seen in this thread as well as the amount of veiled petty spite is disappointing. It's just headphones after all but I guess it's their $2500 headphones on the line..

Nobody is twisting your arm. If you think the headphone kingdom is in chains and Tyll Hertsens is in charge of the chain department, that's your opinion, not ours.