Abyss AB-1266 Phi TC Review (Headphone)

[jlb]

it is expensive so it cant be worth the money...no need to read any other reviews here

 

[NoSnakeOil2]

it is expensive so it cant be worth the money...no need to read any other reviews here

I'm curious how it compares with the $9 Sonys that were also good with EQ. )

 

[jlb]

Obviously the 9 dollar item is better I am sure it measures better

 

[amirm]

it is expensive so it cant be worth the money...no need to read any other reviews here

If something is perfect I recommend it without hesitation regardless of cost. My own speakers cost $23,000 so no allergies about cost here. The issue with this headphone is that out of box it is highly flawed. With eq it becomes hugely better and garnered my highest recommendation as a result. Your comment then is out of line on all front.

You need to learn that being expensive has no correlation with fidelity. So look to the data and don't put your head in the sand.

 

[jlb]

I know that well but also know this site basically bashes everything expensive just for being expensive. We are told here that 200 dollar amps measure better than 10k ones so they are better etc. personally I own the abyss tc and it is extraordinary. If it wasn’t I would gladly buy and listen to something cheaper. This site seems to exist to iconoclastic and bash and mock most everything expensive. I am the first person to grant that expensive isn’t necessarily better but I can tell you from experience that a 6k amp on average will be far better than a 200 dollar one no matter the measurement. Can there be an aberration? Absolutely but after reading some of the reviews and comments on this site I had to add my 2 cents

 

[Kachda]

I know that well but also know this site basically bashes everything expensive just for being expensive. We are told here that 200 dollar amps measure better than 10k ones so they are better etc. personally I own the abyss tc and it is extraordinary. If it wasn’t I would gladly buy and listen to something cheaper. This site seems to exist to iconoclastic and bash and mock most everything expensive. I am the first person to grant that expensive isn’t necessarily better but I can tell you from experience that a 6k amp on average will be far better than a 200 dollar one no matter the measurement. Can there be an aberration? Absolutely but after reading some of the reviews and comments on this site I had to add my 2 cents

Well your opinion is certainly more valuable than all the testing being done. Thanks for your input!

 

[amirm]

I know that well but also know this site basically bashes everything expensive just for being expensive. We are told here that 200 dollar amps measure better than 10k ones so they are better etc. personally I own the abyss tc and it is extraordinary. If it wasn’t I would gladly buy and listen to something cheaper. This site seems to exist to iconoclastic and bash and mock most everything expensive.

Well, you are wrong on multiple fronts. First, we rely on facts to make our opinions reliable. Check out this peer-reviewed, journal study of headphones versus preferred frequency response:

In controlled listening tests, this is how headphones did relative to their cost:

Preference ratings above 75 were dominated by cheaper products. The expensive ones got scores below 50. Again, this is controlled listening tests were the listener, unlike you, didn't know how much something cost.

Correlation of r=1 indicates perfection. Zero means no correlation. r=0.14 is terrible in that regard.

On our side, it is easy to disprove your thesis and show that I have indeed recommended expensive headphones, albeit often with EQ. Here is a sorted list of headphones I have tested at > $1000 retail price: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/HeadphoneReview/

As you see, the $4,000 Focal Utopia is recommended with or without EQ. There are actually four such headphones here. According to you, this should not have happened but it has. As I said, we rely on facts that back our point of view. Come back when you have yours and we will listen. Until then you have made a caricature of us to make yourself feel better buying expensive stuff blind.

 

[amirm]

I am the first person to grant that expensive isn’t necessarily better but I can tell you from experience that a 6k amp on average will be far better than a 200 dollar one no matter the measurement. Can there be an aberration? Absolutely but after reading some of the reviews and comments on this site I had to add my 2 cents

Unfortunately "what you can tell us" is worth less than zero. It is damaging to the cause of objectivity and fidelity to make claims that have only an opinion attached to them and no facts. You didn't even do a bit of homework to see if what you are saying about us is true. If you had, you would have noticed that all the top performing amplifiers cost a lot more than $200:

The top one is Benchmark AHB2 which costs $3,000. Indeed, you have to spend over $1,000 if you want a high-powered amplifier with superb performance.

There has however been developments in budget amplifiers where for $200 you can get excellent performance. Again, facts support that so there is no getting around that.

Sadly I have tested a $6,000 amp that performed no better than average: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ff-rowland-535-stereo-amplifier-review.12531/

Bottom line, what we do here is determined by fidelity and that is up to the designer. We don't add points because of looks, price, brand, etc. We are hear to find the products that do justice to the term "high fidelity." What brings you a feeling of luxury is up to you and you don't need us to be the judge of that.

 

[Robbo99999]

I know that well but also know this site basically bashes everything expensive just for being expensive. We are told here that 200 dollar amps measure better than 10k ones so they are better etc. personally I own the abyss tc and it is extraordinary. If it wasn’t I would gladly buy and listen to something cheaper. This site seems to exist to iconoclastic and bash and mock most everything expensive. I am the first person to grant that expensive isn’t necessarily better but I can tell you from experience that a 6k amp on average will be far better than a 200 dollar one no matter the measurement. Can there be an aberration? Absolutely but after reading some of the reviews and comments on this site I had to add my 2 cents

From my own point of view, I'd rather bash something that is very expensive yet measures & reviews badly....I'm much likely to bash it harder the more it costs if it measures & reviews badly. If it measures well and reviews well I wouldn't bash it, but I'd probably provide equal or better alternatives that were cheaper. I'm interested in cost, it's an important factor, but as we know there's no real correlation between cost & quality (certainly re headphones).

 

[Hoegaardener70]

Well, you are wrong on multiple fronts. First, we rely on facts to make our opinions reliable. Check out this peer-reviewed, journal study of headphones versus preferred frequency response:

View attachment 137116

In controlled listening tests, this is how headphones did relative to their cost:

View attachment 137117

Preference ratings above 75 were dominated by cheaper products. The expensive ones got scores below 50. Again, this is controlled listening tests were the listener, unlike you, didn't know how much something cost.

Correlation of r=1 indicates perfection. Zero means no correlation. r=0.14 is terrible in that regard.

On our side, it is easy to disprove your thesis and show that I have indeed recommended expensive headphones, albeit often with EQ. Here is a sorted list of headphones I have tested at > $1000 retail price: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/HeadphoneReview/

View attachment 137118

As you see, the $4,000 Focal Utopia is recommended with or without EQ. There are actually four such headphones here. According to you, this should not have happened but it has. As I said, we rely on facts that back our point of view. Come back when you have yours and we will listen. Until then you have made a caricature of us to make yourself feel better buying expensive stuff blind.

So, here is what i find on this site (more specifically, in the comments since Amir does mention it) insufficiently reflected- the presentation each headphone will give. I owned 4 of the headphones listed above, and 3 were recommended after eq, and one even without (Utopia). But they all are massively different even after applying eq. I pondered a long time between the Utopia and the ab-1266tc and decided for the latter, since it gave me a very energetic, spectacular experience compared to the sophisticated and somewhat more balanced Utopia. It just brought something to the table. The utopia was special as well, but the hd800s and hd820 were far below the other two as an experience no matter what ew had been applied.

 

[sandymc]

So, here is what i find on this site (more specifically, in the comments since Amir does mention it) insufficiently reflected- the presentation each headphone will give. I owned 4 of the headphones listed above, and 3 were recommended after eq, and one even without (Utopia). But they all are massively different even after applying eq. I pondered a long time between the Utopia and the ab-1266tc and decided for the latter, since it gave me a very energetic, spectacular experience compared to the sophisticated and somewhat more balanced Utopia. It just brought something to the table. The utopia was special as well, but the hd800s and hd820 were far below the other two as an experience no matter what ew had been applied.

Have to agree. I have headphones from Focal and HiFiMan, and I do not find that they sound at all alike after EQ. Maybe that's something to do with my ears or the way I listen, but I find the value of EQ to be vastly overrated on this and many other forums.

 

[MayaTlab]

Have to agree. I have headphones from Focal and HiFiMan, and I do not find that they sound at all alike after EQ. Maybe that's something to do with my ears or the way I listen, but I find the value of EQ to be vastly overrated on this and many other forums.

There are at least a few demonstrable reasons why that could be the case.

For a start some headphones' FR can't effectively be EQed because they feature sharp nulls or peaks.
Also, sample variation and pad wear are things.

Just as importantly headphones' FR may vary depending on exactly how they interact with your anatomy (head size, shape, ear shape, ear canal shape, pad compression, seal, etc.) or how they're positioned over your head (forwards, backwards, upwards, etc.).
This study is from what I understand a good illustration of the latter :
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16877
And my own (DIY, so don't read too much into it) attempt at measuring headphones near my eardrum : https://www.head-fi.org/threads/how...guarantee-a-better-sound.958201/post-16405751

It's less that EQ's value is overrated, but rather the lack of measurements near your own eardrums, that limits what can realistically be done with EQ based on dummy head / test rigs measurements. Which is why I believe that Amir prefers to limit his recommendations to a few fairly low Q bands that in his opinion will suit most people without introducing too many detrimental effects.

In no way should that undermine the value of test rigs measurements, a lot can still be learnt from them. For a start Harman's research is predictive of people's preference to a degree. It's beyond that degree that things get tricky. Both the HD560S and HD650 score well against that target and yet most people would be able to tell that they're different and prefer one over the other.
And test rigs measurements can be invaluable to characterise headphones' behaviour, such as determining their susceptibility to seal break, the presence of sharp nulls / peaks - which are unlikely to magically disappear once on your head for most of them, particularly below a few kHz, the general "shape" of the FR (if it looks like the Himalayas below a few kHz you already have a problem), etc...

 

[SRKRAM]

Just as importantly headphones' FR may vary depending on exactly how they interact with your anatomy (head size, shape, ear shape, ear canal shape, pad compression, seal, etc.) or how they're positioned over your head (forwards, backwards, upwards, etc.).
This study is from what I understand a good illustration of the latter :
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16877

I'm not sure if other people have this feature, but when I listen to music, my ears tend to move and with some headphones it causes quite noticeable changes in the sound.

 

[sandymc]

There are at least a few demonstrable reasons why that could be the case.
......

Agree - any or all of those reasons could be true. But it still means that EQ in the sense of a general rig-measured EQ is, for me at least, not useful.

 

[MayaTlab]

Agree - any or all of those reasons could be true. But it still means that EQ in the sense of a general rig-measured EQ is, for me at least, not useful.

I think that it can still help a lot, particularly for headphones which deviate a lot from each others.

 

[Robbo99999]

So, here is what i find on this site (more specifically, in the comments since Amir does mention it) insufficiently reflected- the presentation each headphone will give. I owned 4 of the headphones listed above, and 3 were recommended after eq, and one even without (Utopia). But they all are massively different even after applying eq. I pondered a long time between the Utopia and the ab-1266tc and decided for the latter, since it gave me a very energetic, spectacular experience compared to the sophisticated and somewhat more balanced Utopia. It just brought something to the table. The utopia was special as well, but the hd800s and hd820 were far below the other two as an experience no matter what ew had been applied.

In my opinion & experience you'll get more reliable results by using Oratory EQ's (https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/wiki/index/list_of_presets), as he measures more than one unit when he can as well as taking multiple measurements of each unit, so his EQ's are more likely to more closely reflect your own unit than some other sources. If you know you're a fan of the Harman Curve, then you'd buy a bunch of headphones and try them with Oratory EQ's and keep the one you liked best, then you'd sell or return the others. I see that as one way of getting a consistent platform as possible on which to compare the inherent virtues of each headphone (being probably soundstage / comfort / distortion).

 

[NoSnakeOil2]

If something is perfect I recommend it without hesitation regardless of cost. My own speakers cost $23,000 so no allergies about cost here. The issue with this headphone is that out of box it is highly flawed. With eq it becomes hugely better and garnered my highest recommendation as a result. Your comment then is out of line on all front.

You need to learn that being expensive has no correlation with fidelity. So look to the data and don't put your head in the sand.

Kudos on your last comment! It should run as a "WARNING" label under most of the ads in audiophile magazines.)))))

 

[dont_listen_to_me]

I saw this company make a claim that they are the "world's highest 'resolution' headphones". Any insight as to what they're claiming here? is there an objective test for this that matters? I'm no expert in the least, so forgive me if this is a silly question and it's something that's already covered and I'm just not familiar with the term "resolution" as it applies to headphones specifically.

 

[tomtrp]

I saw this company make a claim that they are the "world's highest 'resolution' headphones". Any insight as to what they're claiming here? is there an objective test for this that matters? I'm no expert in the least, so forgive me if this is a silly question and it's something that's already covered and I'm just not familiar with the term "resolution" as it applies to headphones specifically.

They do sound very analytical and lots of ‘’details''， but that is mainly the tuning of frequency response.

 

[amirm]

I saw this company make a claim that they are the "world's highest 'resolution' headphones". Any insight as to what they're claiming here?

Yes. It is marketing hyperbole. They don't know that it is. And they know that there is no measurement per se for it. So they can't be called on it. Given how much distortion it has, we can however guess that it has lower resolution than other headphones. Those distortions stomp on low level detail so by definition, lower resolution.