The analogy is quite applicable, the preference for a "look" characteristic from a picture being analogous to a preference for a "sound" characteristic from music, both based on beliefs about what things should look or sound like.
This being the Sound Science forum, you need to back that up with some evidence as it appears to contradict the facts! The facts are: AFAIK, the output of an iPod Touch is flat throughout the spectrum to about +/- 0.2dB, so even if a WM1A does have better performance, it wouldn't be an audibly better performance and certainly not "night and day" better. Finding an extra $400 for an inaudible improvement (assuming there is even an improvement in the first place) would therefore appear to be particularly poor advice. However, the performance of any amp (including the amp section of the iPod output) is determined by the load (HPs), so it is possible the WM 1A might provide an audible improvement with certain HPs, assuming it has higher output voltage and/or lower impedance. If it hasn't, then your advice is incorrect and if it has, then your advice should be conditional (on the individual's load) and NOT aimed at "anyone looking to buy an iPod".
I'm not sure if that analogy is applicable. I don't know the fine details of exactly how digital image capture works but with digital audio we don't really have the equivalent of digital image capture. "Image capture" in digital audio is still analogue, microphone capsules output analogue signals (an electric current), digital audio then just stores that analogue electrical current as digital data. As far as I understand digital image capture, a more accurate analogy would therefore arguably be an image captured on film and then digitised. In which case there is no reason (beyond expectation bias or deliberate artistic intent by the creators) why the pictures would not be perceived how they "are supposed to look like".
Of course, so sorry, I actually didn’t realize this was even SS. I’m not a scientist in any way. All my opinions are my own subjective listening tests. Just my own experiences recorded.
But, you’ll also find a post just a couple posts back where a member confessed an epiphany concerning recorded and measured sound quality as opposed to learning that devices such as DAPs can sound better than a phone. He himself posted a revelation concerning finding different choices made his listening experiences better. If anything posts like we are reading the last couple pages simply induce speculation. Subjective speculation where folks can find out by simply trying out other choices than being relaxed hopping their iPod is getting them the best entertainment experience for their investment.
Truly in any forum in Head-Fi other than SS your going to get a pretty big smile from readers reading that there is an argument that phones sound equivalent to high end DAPs. The group consensus pretty much validated that DAPs are better than an iPhone or iPod. If it can be proven that there are other qualities brought to the table other than amp power it would be of value. There has to be a scientific, provable and factual set of test results which to verify why DAPs are popular for some over simply using a phone or iPod?
In contrast to the iPod Touch the Sony 1Z is probably adding a V signature “color” which is in direct contrast to the great flat response graphs we have for the Touch. The Touch does measure well, but I have to guess these popular DAPs are bringing other qualities to the table to further their popularity.
You have to remember too, I was the guy using iPods and defending iPod sound quality measurements for so long at Head-Fi. The last thing I would want is to convince new readers that they need an expensive unreasonably priced DAP, when all they need is a phone.
It’s maybe true in many cases with volume levels needed and individual transducer requirements noted; that a phone IS the best choice.
Still in my personal subjective history my DAPs offer higher resolution sounding playback. The soundstage seems bigger and there seems to better imaging and a blacker background. How much of this is the simple improvement from a balanced source I can’t say.
But in the end I do have to agree my perception of better musicality could be the result of color and finding a tone along with output power which goes along with the sound I’m after.
The analogy is quite applicable, the preference for a "look" characteristic from a picture being analogous to a preference for a "sound" characteristic from music, both based on beliefs about what things should look or sound like.
If there's a particular coloration that you like, it's easier and precise to apply that in a DSP over the top of something that is perfectly clean than it is to roll the dice and apply coloration through analogue error. There's nothing wrong with coloration. It's just better to have total control over it. If you want euphonic distortion or response deviation, there are lots of DSPs that can do that for you with complete control so you can fine tune it however you'd like.
Still in my personal subjective history my DAPs offer higher resolution sounding playback. The soundstage seems bigger and there seems to better imaging and a blacker background. How much of this is the simple improvement from a balanced source I can’t say.
All of those things you describe are textbook examples of how people describe improvements in sound which turn out to be expectation bias. People rarely describe differences in distortion or response or things that actually might be different. They describe vague things that have more to do with the way they are perceiving the music than the way the music is being reproduced.
[1] Truly in any forum in Head-Fi other than SS your going to get a pretty big smile from readers reading that there is an argument that phones sound equivalent to high end DAPs.
[2] The group consensus pretty much validated that DAPs are better than an iPhone or iPod.
[3] If it can be proven that there are other qualities brought to the table other than amp power it would be of value.
[4] There has to be a scientific, provable and factual set of test results which to verify why DAPs are popular for some over simply using a phone or iPod?
[5] In contrast to the iPod Touch the Sony 1Z is probably adding a V signature “color” which is in direct contrast to the great flat response graphs we have for the Touch. The Touch does measure well, but I have to guess these popular DAPs are bringing other qualities to the table to further their popularity.
1. That unfortunately says a lot about "any forum in Head-fi other than SS"!
2. That's why this forum in needed, especially as that "group consensus" is so manipulated by marketing interests.
3. It would be of passing interest but wouldn't really change the basic issue, because even if a DAP had better DAC performance than an iPhone/iPod it would be inaudible. Audibly perfect DAC chips cost about $1.50, probably less than $1 in the quantities Apple buy.
4. There has to be some reliable evidence, something more than just "my impression" or "I strongly believe". It's trivially easy to measure performance, a null test takes just a few minutes and you just compare the null test results of the DAP with null test results of the iPod. However, that's if we're talking about actual audio performance, there maybe functionality reasons why a DAP might be preferable to an iPod or maybe some fashion or status symbol reason.
5. I've personally got no problem with someone preferring a coloured (and therefore lower fidelity) playback device. My problem comes when they describe their coloured playback device as being higher fidelity, when in fact it's actually lower fidelity, and state that it's "better", when in fact it's actually "worse"! What they really mean (apparently without realising it) by "better" is really: "Technically worse, but closer to my personal preferences". The problem is that those to whom the advice is being given typically (and unsurprisingly) assume that "better" actually means "better", "higher fidelity" actually means "higher fidelity" and that a "night and day difference" means that they must be ignorant if they don't hear it!
I enjoyed the Triple Drivers but wore them out in the rain and they subsequently failed soon after. I still have two sets of the original Piston 3 IEMs and they have held up.
The only edition available today for sale that I know of is called the Piston 3 Fresh Edition. The Fresh edition is a cheaper style build of the Piston 3 which sells for about $9. The Fresh Edition is nice, but really nothing as fantastic as the Piston 3 original was.
But the original Piston 3 has been sold out for ages. They are built so well I would actually consider getting a used pair. Buying someone’s used $30 IEM is normally an edgy venture, but the Piston 3 IEMs are made well.
After owning the Triple Drivers I would still think they are a deal for today’s regular price of $59. Though you are right some folks do have reliability issues. That is the reason I maybe would not buy the Quad Drivers for $199? The iBfree is about $40 and a great deal too, though it being Bluetooth can’t exactly complete with the Piston 3 for sound quality; though it’s enjoyable.
I have never heard the 1More Quad Drivers, but if I was going to spend $199, I would buy the BGVP DM6. Hands down the DM6 is the best $199 headphone or IEM I have ever owned.
The analogy is quite applicable, the preference for a "look" characteristic from a picture being analogous to a preference for a "sound" characteristic from music, both based on beliefs about what things should look or sound like.
Yes but your assertion was that some people don't like the "look" of digital images because they are captured digitally and instead prefer the "look" of analogue capture (film). This analogy doesn't work with sound because all capture of sound is analogue and therefore, whether people prefer a "characteristic look" of analogue is meaningless because they only ever get the "characteristic look" of analogue and there is no equivalent of "digital sound capture" to compare it to..
Yes but your assertion was that some people don't like the "look" of digital images because they are captured digitally and instead prefer the "look" of analogue capture (film). This analogy doesn't work with sound because all capture of sound is analogue and therefore, whether people prefer a "characteristic look" of analogue is meaningless because they only ever get the "characteristic look" of analogue and there is no equivalent of "digital sound capture" to compare it to..
Ah gee, ya might want to re-read my post. The analogy is about people having a preference for how they believe something should be: what something should sound like, taste like, feel like, smell like, or look like from their pleasant or unpleasant experiences with things that are appraised on their taste, feel, and so forth. The analogy does indeed work, the point of it is that we all have preferences about most anything we consume and these preferences are developed from the earliest exposures with what ever it is we are consuming. That's it. I used the photographic example of preference since it is understandable, that's to say, everyone knows that images from film do not look like images produced digitally; and, some folks, having developed a belief that a picture from film is what pictures are supposed to look like, reject digital images because to them, the pictures do not look like what a picture is supposed to look like.
The analogy is about people having a preference for how they believe something should be: what something should sound like, taste like, feel like, smell like, or look like from their pleasant or unpleasant experiences with things that are appraised on their taste, feel, and so forth.
How can someone have a preference for something that they've never experienced and doesn't exist? There is no equivalent of digital image capture with sound, there is ONLY analogue sound capture.
How can someone have a preference for something that they've never experienced and doesn't exist? There is no equivalent of digital image capture with sound, there is ONLY analogue sound capture.
I don't know how anyone could have a preference for anything that stimulates the senses without exposures to several examples within the genre; but, that's moot, as well as an analogy requiring equivalency, did you make that up. It only requires partial similarity, and my comment satisfies that requirement: folks preferring an image making process for the Look believed to be the way it ought to be is similar to preferring a music reproduction process for the Sound believed to be the way it ought to be. In this analogy it does not matter that the processes or recipe used to bake the compared products are similar processes, only that a process may produce a preference.
In this analogy it does not matter that the processes or recipe used to bake the compared products are similar processes, only that a process may produce a preference.
But that's my point, there are no "similar" or any other sort of "processes", there is only one process, there has been only one process for at least 80 years or so (a musician performs in a room and an (analogue) mic + mic pre-amp is used to capture that performance). So, how can YOUR statement: "only that a process may produce a preference" ever be satisfied? How can you have a "preference" for a particular process if there is only ONE process to choose from ... what are you going to prefer it to?
But that's my point, there are no "similar" or any other sort of "processes", there is only one process, there has been only one process for at least 80 years or so (a musician performs in a room and an (analogue) mic + mic pre-amp is used to capture that performance). So, how can YOUR statement: "only that a process may produce a preference" ever be satisfied? How can you have a "preference" for a particular process if there is only ONE process to choose from ... what are you going to prefer it to?
A process is a chain of events; therefore, when a result is possible from a chain which is divergent from another, a preference for one chain can be made if the result from one chain is more desirable. Today there are many chains to deliver recorded music, some where music is stored digitally, some not, so, a preference is possible merely from perception, or impression of the delivered products quality. A gross example is LPs may present distracting snap, crackle, and pop, while CDs are pop free. This singular divergence could cause someone to have a preference for CDs.
A process is a chain of events; therefore, when a result is possible from a chain which is divergent from another, a preference for one chain can be made if the result from one chain is more desirable.
Again, that's my point. The "chain of events" of image capture IS divergent, one can capture an image using analogue technology (say with film) or capture a digital image. But with sound we can't, there is no divergent "chain of events", there is only one "chain of events", analogue sound capture. Therefore a result is NOT "possible from a chain which is divergent from another" and there can be no "preference" or "desirability" for one "chain of events" over another, because there are no other "chain of events"! This discussion is becoming surreal!
Again, that's my point. The "chain of events" of image capture IS divergent, one can capture an image using analogue technology (say with film) or capture a digital image. But with sound we can't, there is no divergent "chain of events", there is only one "chain of events", analogue sound capture. Therefore a result is NOT "possible from a chain which is divergent from another" and there can be no "preference" or "desirability" for one "chain of events" over another, because there are no other "chain of events"! This discussion is becoming surreal!
I'll give you possible:
film>digital scan>digital edit>digital post / film>print
magnetic tape>digital conversion>digital edit>digital post / magnetic tape> analog edit> analog post
End of conversation.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
