Audiophile Myths Proved Wrong!

[mr moose]

 

 

I don't think I can tell the difference between FLAC and 320kbps mp3, but I'm only running a Xonar DX, which isn't the most amazing DAC.

 

 

The DAC in your dx is easily more than acceptable. Even though the card does not have a separate headphone amp you should have enough drive to get detail in the hd650's to rival most audio solutions.

 

EDIT: the caveat here of course is unless you have some sort of interference from surround components.

[Yoinkerman]

I don't know what video you guys watched, the one I watched really didn't call anything out except cables.

 

Here's what I took away from the video:

 

If a 320kbps mp3 is taken from the same high quality source as a flac file, there isn't a tangible difference.  OK that makes sense.

 

Tube amps colour the sound signature and are super expensive.  They aren't "better" they're different and not necessary to have a good listening experience.  If you like how they colour the sound that's cool.

 

Cables/jacks/gold plating/etc are a joke for headphone use, pretty well any cable will be the same.

 

The sampling part got butchered =\  Essentially when listening to a track, 44khz playback is fine.  Sampling at higher rates when creating sound is important to be able to do different things with it.  Not for playback though.  Playback at 44khz recreates the sound wave accurately enough to sound great.  Increasing the sampling rate doesn't do much.

[Art Vandelay]

The DAC in your dx is easily more than acceptable. Even though the card does not have a separate headphone amp you should have enough drive to get detail in the hd650's to rival most audio solutions.

 

EDIT: the caveat here of course is unless you have some sort of interference from surround components.

Eh, without my amp, it sounds like I'm listening to HD558s.

 

Actually, after trying out the test done in this thread, I was able to identify the .flac file in 3 out of the 4 songs that I listened to in a blind taste test. There seemed to be a very slight difference in the sound produced by the drums. 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/41163-aac-vs-vorbis-vs-flac-blind-test-can-you-hear-the-difference/

 

That being said, I don't think I could notice the difference when casually listening.

 

 

Tube amps colour the sound signature and are super expensive.  They aren't "better" they're different and not necessary to have a good listening experience.  If you like how they colour the sound that's cool.

Yeah I know right, I paid $140 for my tube amp. I could have saved a total of $10 by purchasing the JDS labs O2 amp. 

[bowleggedcat]

Eh, without my amp, it sounds like I'm listening to HD558s.

Actually, after trying out the test done in this thread, I was able to identify the .flac file in 3 out of the 4 songs that I listened to in a blind taste test. There seemed to be a very slight difference in the sound produced by the drums.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/41163-aac-vs-vorbis-vs-flac-blind-test-can-you-hear-the-difference/

That being said, I don't think I could notice the difference when casually listening.

Yeah I know right, I paid $140 for my tube amp. I could have saved a total of $10 by purchasing the JDS labs O2 amp.

I've never seen a tube amp that cheap, please show me.

Also it's funny you mention the 650/558 thing.

The frequency response graphs of both headphone are nearly identical.

[h264]

I've never seen a tube amp that cheap, please show me.

Also it's funny you mention the 650/558 thing.

The frequency response graphs of both headphone are nearly identical.

 

some hybrid tube amps can be very cheap, such as the Schiit Vali, but still sound no better than a solid state amp of equal or lesser value.  Also with the Vali it seems you have to re-glue the tubes to the PCB:

 

[Art Vandelay]

I've never seen a tube amp that cheap, please show me.

Also it's funny you mention the 650/558 thing.

The frequency response graphs of both headphone are nearly identical.

The frequency response is near identical? But the 650s are so much more bass heavy than the 558s.

 

http://www.amazon.ca/Bravo-Audio-Ocean-Headphone-Amplifier/dp/B00A2QKSVI

http://www.amazon.com/BRAVO-Audio-V3-Headphone-Amplifier/dp/B00A2QKUES

 

I'm sure there are plenty more decent cheap tube amps.

 

 

some hybrid tube amps can be very cheap, such as the Schiit Vali, but still sound no better than a solid state amp of equal or lesser value.

They sound different. I think the effect is nice, and it's not like coloring the sound is really a big deal if you have headphones that color the sound already

[Yoinkerman]

$140 compared to onboard or a $30 sound card?  Yeah, it's super expensive.

[Art Vandelay]

$140 compared to onboard or a $30 sound card?  Yeah, it's super expensive.

Are you implying that my tube amp and a $30 sound card are comparable?

[Yoinkerman]

I'm saying they shouldn't be compared.  All proper amps are expensive compared to onboard or sound cards, and colour the sound a lot compared to solid state devices.

 

Are you implying that my tube amp and a $30 sound card are comparable?

[bowleggedcat]

The frequency response is near identical? But the 650s are so much more bass heavy than the 558s.

 

http://www.amazon.ca/Bravo-Audio-Ocean-Headphone-Amplifier/dp/B00A2QKSVI

http://www.amazon.com/BRAVO-Audio-V3-Headphone-Amplifier/dp/B00A2QKUES

 

I'm sure there are plenty more decent cheap tube amps.

 

 

 

They sound different. I think the effect is nice, and it's not like coloring the sound is really a big deal if you have headphones that color the sound already

 

http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2861&graphID[]=853&scale=30

 

Besides the bass, everything is about the same.

[ShearMe]

http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2861&graphID[]=853&scale=30

 

Besides the bass, everything is about the same.

 

Blashphemer!

[Tam3n]

Here you can test how various frequencies sound (if your phones are upto it): http://www.audiocheck.net/soundtests_headphones.php

Some high end phones claim 30 000 Hz upper response area, not sure if that's actually doing anything - well might be it's just a side effect of the good quality so why not put it on paper...

[Art Vandelay]

I'm saying they shouldn't be compared.  All proper amps are expensive compared to onboard or sound cards, and colour the sound a lot compared to solid state devices.

Okay, that's fair. The video posted was comparing the O2 against tube amps though.

 

http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2861&graphID[]=853&scale=30

 

Besides the bass, everything is about the same.

Interesting. The HD650s do sounds a lot better than the 558s, when properly amplified though. 

[bowleggedcat]

Okay, that's fair. The video posted was comparing the O2 against tube amps though.

 

Interesting. The HD650s do sounds a lot better than the 558s, when properly amplified though. 

 

There was nothing in that video comparing tube amps to o2 amps.

 

I've had both, and there were almost no differences. The bass was slightly better (as compared to the graph) but I've come to the conclusion that most of sennhesiers headphones sound the same.

[Art Vandelay]

There was nothing in that video comparing tube amps to o2 amps.

 

I've had both, and there were almost no differences. The bass was slightly better (as compared to the graph) but I've come to the conclusion that most of sennhesiers headphones sound the same.

Well, they did recommend the O2 multiple times and got a spokesman from a company that sells the O2 and no cheaper amps, so you can probably get why I'd get this impression.

 

I've found that the upper range on the 558s sounded worse, especially in the upper range. It's not a huge difference, but I find them more pleasing to listen to.

[KaareKanin]

I think Logan has gotten the taste for stirring things up! He can be described as somewhat of an provocateur, and that's fine. Logan wants people to think for themselves, and he likes to stir up popular belief by contradicting them.

One of my biggest issues with this video is the way this is set out to bust audiophile myths. An audiophile doesn't listen to the music, an audiophile listens to the equipment. An audiophile would do his outmost to eliminate every bad link in his chain. So right there, only for using the word "audiophile", every part of the discussion of file formats, sample rates, bit depth and all that, becomes utterly pointless. Audiophiles do not save money or go for cheaper solutions.

Another of my issues with these video is more about a lot of the people who watch them. Before these came out, just about everyone would "quote" Linus and say that onboard audio is crap and that sound cards would be the way to go. The moment the first Logan+Mayflower video hit the tubes, everyone seemed to go "nah, sound cars are crap, use the onboard audio instead". Have people completely lost their ability to think critically?

My weigh-in on a couple of the topics in the video:

FLAC vs MP3: For most people, a good MP3 will suffice. For people with a very good ear for detail, listening to the right kind of music, FLAC is better. If you fall in that category or not, you'll have to figure out yourself. Being a sound engineer doesn't mean you'll have the ability to spot the difference, but you'll more likely know what to listen for. And what kind of music, might you ask. Music with high dynamic range. FLAC will gain more on MP3 as the dynamic range of a track increases, put simply, as the DR increases, the diversity of the loudness of the track increases, spacing out the field of info the music file has to store. Lossy files like MP3 are at their best when this field of info is narrow, in other words, the differences between the most silent and loud parts of a track are small, every sound wave is pretty much within reasonable range from one and another. There are more advantages to FLAC than just this, but I think it's one of the more important ones. (also, I'm no expert, so I don't really want to venture out on that path). Short story; if you're listening to most pop-music, an MP3 should be able to cope with the sound floor and whatever.

Tube amps: If you want "studio music reproduction", you don't want tube amps. It can probably be done, but it'll be prohibitively expensive. But that's not necessarily the audiophile way. There's a difference between "HiFi" and "Studio" grade audio equipment. HiFi is supposed to colour the audio a little to the taste of the owner. Studio quality will sound duller and flatter, less fun. So do you want "boring accuracy" or do you want "fun HiFi"? As someone (Mayflower? Linus? I can't remember) rightly pointed out, for most people, you would probably be best off if you let the headphones do the colouring of the sound for you, but there's really no reason why you shouldn't do it in an amp. I wouldn't use a software EQ for serious listening myself (for various reasons)

[bowleggedcat]

I think Logan has gotten the taste for stirring things up! He can be described as somewhat of an provocateur, and that's fine. Logan wants people to think for themselves, and he likes to stir up popular belief by contradicting them.

One of my biggest issues with this video is the way this is set out to bust audiophile myths. An audiophile doesn't listen to the music, an audiophile listens to the equipment. An audiophile would do his outmost to eliminate every bad link in his chain. So right there, only for using the word "audiophile", every part of the discussion of file formats, sample rates, bit depth and all that, becomes utterly pointless. Audiophiles do not save money or go for cheaper solutions.

Another of my issues with these video is more about a lot of the people who watch them. Before these came out, just about everyone would "quote" Linus and say that onboard audio is crap and that sound cards would be the way to go. The moment the first Logan+Mayflower video hit the tubes, everyone seemed to go "nah, sound cars are crap, use the onboard audio instead". Have people completely lost their ability to think critically?

My weigh-in on a couple of the topics in the video:

FLAC vs MP3: For most people, a good MP3 will suffice. For people with a very good ear for detail, listening to the right kind of music, FLAC is better. If you fall in that category or not, you'll have to figure out yourself. Being a sound engineer doesn't mean you'll have the ability to spot the difference, but you'll more likely know what to listen for. And what kind of music, might you ask. Music with high dynamic range. FLAC will gain more on MP3 as the dynamic range of a track increases, put simply, as the DR increases, the diversity of the loudness of the track increases, spacing out the field of info the music file has to store. Lossy files like MP3 are best when this field of info is narrow, in other words, the differences between the silent and loud parts of a track are small, every sound wave is pretty much within reasonable range from one and another. There are more advantages to FLAC than just this, but I think it's one of the more important ones. (also, I'm no expert, so I don't really want to venture out on that path). Short story; if you're listening to most pop-music, an MP3 should be able to cope with the sound floor and whatever.

Tube amps: If you want "studio music reproduction", you don't want tube amps. It can probably be done, but it'll be prohibitively expensive. But that's not necessarily the audiophile way. There's a difference between "HiFi" and "Studio" grade audio equipment. HiFi is supposed to colour the audio a little to the taste of the owner. Studio quality will sound duller and flatter, less fun. So do you want "boring accuracy" or do you want "fun HiFi"? As someone (Mayflower? Linus? I can't remember) rightly pointed out, for most people, you would probably be best off if you let the headphones do the colouring of the sound for you, but there's really no reason why you shouldn't do it in an amp. I wouldn't use a software EQ for serious listening myself (for various reasons)

 

Agreed. It comes down to the way people think. I personally like to know each "point of of failure" in my audio chain. If I know that everything but my headphone is 100% neutral, any anomalies or frequency responses can come directly from the headphones. When you add tube amps, or something that distorts or colors the audio, now you have 2 points of "failure" where you don't know what is effected by the equipment. Is it headphones, is it my amp? Both? None? I think Mayflower at the end of the video said, if you like tubes, good for you! By all means, if you think those guys were a bunch of idiots with a video camera, and you like your tubes and what not, no need to get upset and type hate emails. Just ignore their opinion and do what you think is best