[scizzro]

  Man this is mind boggling, As a newbie. I can't seem to decide what version to go with. Can someone sway me in the right direction:
Headphone:  Philips Fidelio X2
Current Source: PC w/ onBoard Sound Card, Soon - FiiO's upcoming X3K
No plan for Speaker setups.
Or I could just save some money & get a Schiit Fulla, but I don't plan on going mobile w/ the X2 Headphone.  

I was under the impression that the X2 is extremely efficient - would it even benefit from amping? I haven't done any research on it, j/w.

 

[Gamingmusiclove]

Man this is mind boggling, As a newbie. I can't seem to decide what version to go with. Can someone sway me in the right direction:
Headphone:  Philips Fidelio X2
Current Source: PC w/ onBoard Sound Card, Soon - FiiO's upcoming X3K
No plan for Speaker setups.
Or I could just save some money & get a Schiit Fulla, but I don't plan on going mobile w/ the X2 Headphone.  

Im also somewhat new. I don't have an amp or DAC not i have much experience, but let me tell you, there is no right way in the audio world. Its really subjective. It can get so subjective that some people claim to hear things others don't. There is no true objective general way. There is only true subjective personal way. Think about it like food, some like sushi, Some like hamburgers, there is no "objectively better". Now, i would also recommend to ask this in the X2 thread, you will get better advice there.

 

[Puma Cat]

  Mr. Puma Cat,
 
Dittos on that Gabriel fella from here in Detroit, our NVH (noise/vibration/harshness) guys use the Shunyata systems.  I've seen some of his amazing results.
 
Being around guys that understand this Shunyata technology has me in the deep end of the Pool, these are the scary smart people.
 
Tony in Michigan  

Yes, yes they are. I first became interested in his designs from reading his patents on the use of Rochelle salts as a means to attenuate EFI/RF noise. I've been trying to convince Caelin to use Design of Experiments (DOE) in his cable design experiments using his DTCD measurement system, but so far I have not gotten him to go there...we shall see. 

 

[tonykaz]

Mr.Puma Cat, 
 
Well, I'll try to be careful in what I say to you, I don't want to appear as dumb as I actually am. 
 
Tony In Michigan 

 

[Puma Cat]

Im also somewhat new. I don't have an amp or DAC not i have much experience, but let me tell you, there is no right way in the audio world. Its really subjective. It can get so subjective that some people claim to hear things others don't. There is no true objective general way. There is only true subjective personal way. Think about it like food, some like sushi, Some like hamburgers, there is no "objectively better". Now, i would also recommend to ask this in the X2 thread, you will get better advice there.

Sometimes there IS an objectively better. Not always, but definitely sometimes. Depends on what it is, though. I agree with you that there is no "right way" in audio. As Genrich Altschuler points out in his theory of TRIZ, there are almost always multiple ways to achieve a given functional response.
 
The design goal is to maximize to the intended beneficial functional responses while minimizing the deleterious responses or error states. These are often confounded in the desired functional responses due to interactions of the input X variables on the functional responses, Y. 
 
For example, you can bet your bottom dollar that reducing jitter in digital playback results in better sounding reproduction and D/A conversion. 

 

[cebuboy]

Ordered a Modi 2U on December 25, yes on Christmas day, got a shipping notification on January 1 New Year's day... Now that is fast service...

 

[Gamingmusiclove]

Sometimes there IS an objectively better. Not always, but definitely sometimes. Depends on what it is, though. I agree with you that there is no "right way" in audio. As Genrich Altschuler points out in his theory of TRIZ, there are almost always multiple ways to achieve a given functional response.

The design goal is to maximize to the intended beneficial functional responses while minimizing the deleterious responses or error states. These are often confounded in the desired functional responses due to interactions of the input X variables on the functional responses, Y. 

For example, you can bet your bottom dollar that reducing jitter in digital playback results in better sounding reproduction and D/A conversion. 

Well, i would say you're right, but let me use an example. You have, on one plate, a delicious caviar, top notch, the best you would ever have. On the other one, you have pickles with penaut better. Which one would you prever? You see, most Expert foodies would tell you the caviar is obviously better. But some people, with weird taste, like the pickles better. This is the reason why someone would prefer beats solo hd over a HD800 or STAX 007. We may know more about headphones than the other person, which means that we have a better, more refined opinion (im sounding way too cocky there). Now, this is for the almost extremely objective cases. And im talking about sound (monitoring, dj'ing and estudio stuff are painfully objective.

 

[TooPoorForHiFi]

  I was under the impression that the X2 is extremely efficient - would it even benefit from amping? I haven't done any research on it, j/w.

Yes, the X2 doesn't  "need" AMP-ing, I've heard from people that it sounds better? w/ Schiit Fulla / Vali, haven't seen someone post feedback on the Magni yet.

 

[TheTodd]

So would you just save the $100 and get the Magni 2 uber instead of he Asgard 2?

 

[skyline315]

  Yes, the X2 doesn't  "need" an AMP-ing, I've heard from people that it sounds better? w/ Schiit Fulla / Vali, haven't seen someone post feedback on the Magni yet.

I would go with the Modi 2/Magi 2 and call it a day.

 

[StanD]

 
Sometimes there IS an objectively better. Not always, but definitely sometimes. Depends on what it is, though. I agree with you that there is no "right way" in audio. As Genrich Altschuler points out in his theory of TRIZ, there are almost always multiple ways to achieve a given functional response.
 
The design goal is to maximize to the intended beneficial functional responses while minimizing the deleterious responses or error states. These are often confounded in the desired functional responses due to interactions of the input X variables on the functional responses, Y. 
 
For example, you can bet your bottom dollar that reducing jitter in digital playback results in better sounding reproduction and D/A conversion. 

If one is to be scientific, one must quantify. What is the threshold where jitter makes no difference to humans and how does it affect what we percieve. Otherwise one is chasing ghosts and contributing nothing to the game. It's good to have a specific goal and purpose, not simply rhetoric.

 

[Guidostrunk]

*facepalm. Unsubscribed.

 

[Puma Cat]

  If one is to be scientific, one must quantify. What is the threshold where jitter makes no difference to humans and how does it affect what we percieve. Otherwise one is chasing ghosts and contributing nothing to the game. It's good to have a specific goal and purpose, not simply rhetoric.

Of course one must measure, this why we have measurement systems, measurement systems analysis (MSA) e.g. EMP and AiAG methods of MSA, and statistics. The key is being able to measure the right thing. You can bet the DAC designers and audio know what level of jitter is audibly discernable and has an impact on perceived sound quality. There are ways to measure this. John Atkinson has written some excellent articles about this in Stereophile. The designers have to use known scientific and engineering principles to make things work, or they wouldn't be able to design good-sounding components, they would just be flailing around, doing things by trial and error. Do you think Mike and Jason spend their time flailing around, or, using solid, known principles based on science and engineering to make their products sound good? This is why their products work as well as they do. 

 

[Puma Cat]

Well, i would say you're right, but let me use an example. You have, on one plate, a delicious caviar, top notch, the best you would ever have. On the other one, you have pickles with penaut better. Which one would you prever? You see, most Expert foodies would tell you the caviar is obviously better. But some people, with weird taste, like the pickles better. This is the reason why someone would prefer beats solo hd over a HD800 or STAX 007. We may know more about headphones than the other person, which means that we have a better, more refined opinion (im sounding way too cocky there). Now, this is for the almost extremely objective cases. And im talking about sound (monitoring, dj'ing and estudio stuff are painfully objective.

I don't disagree with you in any way...preferences and tastes are subjective. But, with all due respect, I think you were missing my point a bit. What I was saying is that there are some things that are objectively measurable that can be statistically correlated to sounding "good" or sounding "better". Read what I said, some, not all. For example, using more robust, powerful, controlled, and quiet power supplies in audio components makes a BIG difference.  Better capacitors matter. Better resistors matter. Why do using these simple components produce better sound? Because they perform in the manner of their ideal functional response and less in the manner of their error states. Approaches like reducing the effects of noise on circuits matters. And, different circuit topologies sound better than others, and there are solid, objective, physics-based principles behind why they do. Circuit toplogists like Jason and Nelson Pass know exactly what they are doing when they try different approaches  to topology design, and why those topologies should and usually, not always, but usually, sound better. 

 

[StanD]

  Of course one must measure, this why we have measurement systems, measurement systems analysis (MSA) e.g. EMP and AiAG methods of MSA, and statistics. The key is being able to measure the right thing. You can bet the DAC designers and audio know what level of jitter is audibly discernable and has an impact on perceived sound quality. There are ways to measure this. John Atkinson has written some excellent articles about this in Stereophile. The designers have to use known scientific and engineering principles to make things work, or they wouldn't be able to design good-sounding components, they would just be flailing around, doing things by trial and error. Do you think Mike and Jason spend their time flailing around, or, using solid, known principles based on science and engineering to make their products sound good? This is why their products work as well as they do. 

I think it might be time to stop going on about the same stuff without bringing IMO any definitive points, as all of this is not in context of this thread and might even be derailing it. There is a science related forum where you can start a thread about this, be prepared to answer detailed questions. If you elect to start such a thread, leave a link to it in this thread.