[up late]

I mentioned a number of times that I agree that accuracy is important, but I believe you get excellent accuracy out of what's already available.  The challenge is to have something very accurate but also nice to listen to.  Without the second part, there's no point.  Maybe you like your music super flat but the vast majority of people don't.

dunno about "the vast majority of people", but the notion of "accuracy" in hi fi is paramount for many audiophiles, regardless of whether it's "nice to listen to" or not. if the recording is "nice" then for them it should sound "nice" on a "high fidelity" audio system. if it's poorly recorded and doesn't sound so "nice", then that's how they want it to be reproduced. audiophiles part with enormous sums of money in their pursuit of this ideal. it's not pointless for them; on the contrary, it's entirely the point.

 

[superlowfi]

dunno about "the vast majority of people", but the notion of "accuracy" in hi fi is paramount for many audiophiles, regardless of whether it's "nice to listen to" or not. if the recording is "nice" then for them it should sound "nice" on a "high fidelity" audio system. if it's poorly recorded and doesn't sound so "nice", then that's how they want it to be reproduced. audiophiles part with enormous sums of money in their pursuit of this ideal. it's not pointless for them; on the contrary, it's entirely the point.

 
Valuing accuracy above all else might be what "audiophiles" tell themselves they want, but this isn't how the vast majority of equipment is reviewed. 
 
See: how much accurate treble is panned by the treble haters, and how popular tube amps are, including in both versions of the Orpheus.

 

[up late]

i'm referring to the notion or ideal of "accuracy" / "high fidelity" that audiophiles seek. this varies between audiophiles and reviewers alike. this forum is testament to that.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

We are humans nothing we do or see or hear is accurate
All we really have is what we like and have hopefully a better class of better audio. That's all we have

 

[Don Wolfberg]

If you had these for a day what would be on your playlist?

 

[Sal1950]

   
I mentioned a number of times that I agree that accuracy is important, but I believe you get excellent accuracy out of what's already available.  The challenge is to have something very accurate but also nice to listen to.  Without the second part, there's no point.  Maybe you like your music super flat but the vast majority of people don't.

If your system is technically accurate but isn't enjoyable to listen to, you need to look somewhere else for the issue. Good spec's don't make a system sound bad.
As to what the "vast majority" like, that's irrelevant, that's why Beats phones are so popular. You can't direct the advancement of high quality sound based solely on what people like.

 

[icebear]

  If your system is technically accurate but isn't enjoyable to listen to, you need to look somewhere else for the issue. Good spec's don't make a system sound bad.
As to what the "vast majority" like, that's irrelevant, that's why Beats phones are so popular. You can't direct the advancement of high quality sound based solely on what people like.

 
...mmh, I'm not sure if technically accurate and transparent are necessarily connected but the latter I think is crucial why I am so satisfied with my set up. Good specs alone don't guarantee good sound but they might for sure help to get there.
 
For me the GSX-Mk2 paired with the HD800 via balanced cables is truly transparent to my ears, doesn't matter if I'm using my disc player or the DAC. I have the impression that I am listening directly to the mic feed with nothing in between. And the remarkable feat is that with all the details being transferred, it is a totally relaxing presentation. There is nothing left for the brain that needs interpolation. It's all there and I like it

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Riddle me this how can many headphones shown specs very simaler but sound very different
Shirt answer there are many aspects we cannot measure
Two simple ones are transient response and timing
These two baubles matter even more than a flat freq response. My msb loaded dac is measured far better than lampi head dac but yet the head dac is far nicer I sound
Why ????

 

[Sal1950]

Riddle me this how can many headphones shown specs very simaler but sound very different
Shirt answer there are many aspects we cannot measure
Two simple ones are transient response and timing
These two baubles matter even more than a flat freq response. My msb loaded dac is measured far better than lampi head dac but yet the head dac is far nicer I sound
Why ????

Why does everyone keep jumping on frequency response? There are tons of other measurable parameters than also have very audible effects on a component and are usefull tools that all designers use when designing a component.
 
As for your msb dac, is that a proven fact that is is the best sounding dac available?  Or that it even has been chosen in blind listening tests that it is a better sounding dac than the lampi.?
Or is this just your personal opinion of your dac?  Where are the published results of the independent measurements and a large group blind listening test to support your claims? Of course transient response and timing can be measured.
 
Look, I'm sorry and I don't mean to jump on you like this but I don't understand what point you were attempting to make with your post was except to try and say that technical measurements are meaningless and useless, which is just a ridiculous position to take.

 

[Sal1950]

dunno about "the vast majority of people", but the notion of "accuracy" in hi fi is paramount for many audiophiles, regardless of whether it's "nice to listen to" or not. if the recording is "nice" then for them it should sound "nice" on a "high fidelity" audio system. if it's poorly recorded and doesn't sound so "nice", then that's how they want it to be reproduced. audiophiles part with enormous sums of money in their pursuit of this ideal. it's not pointless for them; on the contrary, it's entirely the point.

+1  Much better said than I seem to have been able too.
 
If accuracy doesn't matter to any particular listener than there a many ways he can "tune" his system to get the results he wants.

 

[superlowfi]

  Why does everyone keep jumping on frequency response?

 
I find the somewhat modern obsession with frequency response a little strange myself. There is no ideal frequency response curve. There exist some theories regarding the same but there is no one authoritative ideal.
 
People are talking themselves into a stupor regarding "treble peaks" and "valleys" that are down right nonsensical.
 
I'm sure Sennheiser is laughing all the way to the bank with the HD800S. "oh yeah, you internet engineers stuffing socks in your headphones are really improve that frequency response, here's a 300$ premium for the privilege."

 

[Sal1950]

   
I find the somewhat modern obsession with frequency response a little strange myself. There is no ideal frequency response curve. There exist some theories regarding the same but there is no one authoritative ideal.
 
People are talking themselves into a stupor regarding "treble peaks" and "valleys" that are down right nonsensical.
 
I'm sure Sennheiser is laughing all the way to the bank with the HD800S. "oh yeah, you internet engineers stuffing socks in your headphones are really improve that frequency response, here's a 300$ premium for the privilege."

When it comes to transducers I don't think any manufacturer aims for flat. They "tune" all their products to have a sound that they think will appeal to all the particular niches of the markets. Whatever sound you prefer, in whatever price range, there's a can or speaker that is perfect for you.
At a more subtle level the same can be said of electronics too. 30 years ago Bob Carver proved that he could tune an amp to sound any way he wanted and that same tuning goes on today. IMHO if amps were truly designed to the state of the design art, they would all the same. But then how would anyone sell their amps, audiophile components HAVE to offer different sounds.  LOL

 

[up late]

I find the somewhat modern obsession with frequency response a little strange myself. There is no ideal frequency response curve. There exist some theories regarding the same but there is no one authoritative ideal.

People are talking themselves into a stupor regarding "treble peaks" and "valleys" that are down right nonsensical.

I'm sure Sennheiser is laughing all the way to the bank with the HD800S. "oh yeah, you internet engineers stuffing socks in your headphones are really improve that frequency response, here's a 300$ premium for the privilege."

a flat frequency response isn't just a figment of speaker designers imaginations

 

[mulder01]

MA, if memory serves me correctly, didn't you use to post lots of test graphs that compared actual headphone test results to a "preferred" curve?  Why is the "preferred" curve not the theoretical best curve?  When they tested the HE1060, I bet they didn't test the whole system, rather just the headphone.  Then they go and put tubes in the amp circuit which everyone knows impart their own individual sound on the music.  And why do the majority of Stax owners use tube amps?  Probably because a super "correct" headphone doesn't actually sound any good unless it's rounded off a little.  Tyll, the man himself recently labelled the HD800 "unlistenable" in it's stock form, even though it is technically brilliant.  (I'm assuming this is the reason they have just released the more rounded HD800S too).  It seems like anything that measures super well needs to have some sort of compensation to make it bearable.  I am all for having revealing, accurate sounding stuff, but not at the expense of musicality.  All I've been saying is:
 

 
Anyone who picks something that measures well over something that they like the sound of is a mug.

 

[Nomax]

The song that i have played in the my Orpheus video

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l-pAgDgQdm0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=em-share_video_user&v=XoCBY0ATsyo


Regards Nomax