• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Can I get some opinions on my opinions

1096bimu

New Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2024
Messages
4
Likes
3
while I was never actually a big audiphile, I've always been interested in dipping into this stuff, unfortunately I haven't been able to find a community free of audio fools nonsense. I only had my own reasoning and whatever limited equipment I could personally purchase to try to find truths about what actually sounds good. Until recently when I found ASR of course. I've read as much as I can but I just wanna throw some opinions out there and ask that you give some brief thoughts, just like are they right or are they complete nonsense:
  1. most modern DACs are transparent
  2. 320k CBR MP3 is transparent with most normal music content
  3. The latest Apple and Beats wireless headphones sound almost the same as a neutral "audiophile" wired system for normal music content
  4. A macbook pro with "advanced support for high-impedence headphones" sounds the same as any other dedicated headphone amp, including ones with balanced output
  5. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/moondrop-chu-ii-iem-review.55179/ this $20 IEM sounds as good as any other
  6. It makes no sense for "sound stage" to be an inherent property of a headphone, even if that could be done. It should instead, be a digital effect you could control
  7. the effect of the room itself has on sound is much more complicated and expensive to resolve, than finding a good set of speakers.
  8. A $100 Fosi amplifier sounds as good as any other, assuming we are talking about speakers with matching power and impedance requirements.
  9. Other than compatibility and issues with resampling, there is no performance reason to go above 16bit 44.1khz for playback
  10. if I have 25db of background noise, and I'm listening at 85db that means I can only appreciate a ~60db dynamic range. So devices with 100db+ dynamic range aren't even close to possibly being fully utilized in any realistic listening setting. That is assuming the track itself uses 60db of dynamic range, which is not common for popular music?
it seems like anywhere else people will simply say your equipment is not expensive enough, or you just have bad ears so you can't tell. Are they right to any extent at all or are they just being audio fools?

For #6, ok so I understand that since ears are different, so they will have different effects on the sound coming into the ear canal, and therefore the exact frequency response you need in an IEM for a totally transparent audio experience differs from person to person. But we will ignore this fact and pretend everyone just has the exact same ears where the harman target works perfectly. And "good" means it sounds transparent, like if you were to make a binaural recording of something, and play it through these IEMs, it sounds the same as physically being there.
 
Last edited:
3, 5 and 8 don't really stack up or come with so many caveats as to be meaningless .
 
A macbook pro with "advanced support for high-impedence headphones" sounds the same as any other dedicated headphone amp, including ones with balanced output
The actuality is that low impedance headphones require a better high current headphone amp.
The latest Apple and Beats wireless headphones sound almost the same as a neutral "audiophile" wired system for normal music content
Headphones and earbuds are a personal choice.
It makes no sense for "sound stage" to be an inherent property of a headphone, even if that could be done. It should instead, be a digital effect you could control
Huh?
the effect of the room itself has on sound is much more complicated and expensive to resolve, than finding a good set of speakers.
Sometimes.
A $100 Fosi amplifier sounds as good as any other
No. Very high current high power drive may be required. Otherwise the Fosi is a good amp.
 
most modern DACs are transparent
We don't know about all of the modern DACs to make such conclusion. We can say that most of the modern DACs reviewed on ASR are.

320k CBR MP3 is transparent with most normal music content
Yes. But MP3 itself is an obsolete format.

The latest Apple and Beats wireless headphones sound almost the same as a neutral "audiophile" wired system for normal music content
This is too vague. What is "almost the same"? What is a "neutral headphone"? And no, most reputable reviewers do not rank Apple and especially Beats headphones among the best headphones out there.

They perform well for their price range. And again, what is the definition of "sounds good"?

It makes no sense for "sound stage" to be an inherent property of a headphone, even if that could be done. It should instead, be a digital effect you could control
Why? There is no such consensus.

the effect of the room itself has on sound is much more complicated and expensive to resolve, than finding a good set of speakers.
Too much generalizing.

A $100 Fosi amplifier sounds as good as any other
Until it's out of power.

Other than compatibility and issues with resampling, there is no performance reason to go above 16bit 44.1khz for playback
It depends. For example, it's better to have larger sample size if you use a badly implemented digital volume control that truncates samples.

if I have 25db of background noise, and I'm listening at 85db that means I can only appreciate a ~60db dynamic range. So devices with 100db+ dynamic range aren't even close to possibly being fully utilized in any realistic listening setting. That is assuming the track itself uses 60db of dynamic range, which is not common for popular music?
Incorrect. The noise floors and listening levels are usually expressed in RMS power, while dynamic range is commonly defined as ratio of largest reproduced amplitude to the amplitude of noise. So when you listen at 85 dBRMS SPL, the actual amplitude of the sound may well exceed 100 dB. That being said, even at 60 dBRMS SPL a 20 dBRMS noise floor becomes pretty much unnoticable. There are also psychoacoustic effects that come into play, leading to noise floor audibility being masked or suppressed by the nervous system.
 
I have to latch on to #6 because I so strongly agree. People go to such extents in comparing how headphones have this and that amount and quality of "soundstage".
It boils my thinking fluids.

The perceived soundstage can only be a property of the audio material being played. Whether the headphones have the fidelity to reproduce the soundstage is an important topic, but the headphones definitely should not "have" audible soundstage of their own. If they do, physics dictate it sounds bad (simply from the physical dimensions of headphones). If it's digitally added, then it's distortion no one should want.

1. DAC's transparent: Agreed
2. 320 kbps MP3 transparent: Agreed
3. Latest Apple & Beats good: Not generally. Apple have some good products. Just forget Beats altogether. They are not designed to be great (even though they sound good to some)
4. MacBook Pro drives any HP well: Not all of them
5. Chu II good: Sure, they may suit your ears and hearing better than some much more expensive ones, but not all of them
7. Rooms tricky: Agreed. The good enough solution isn't always that expensive, though
8. Fosi good: Can sound worse than, as good as, or better than other amps with similar specs regardless of price. It also matters what the amp is driving.
9. 16 bit 44.1 kHz good: Agree as source format. If we're talking about software, specifically operating systems, I'd use 24 bits output. Without knowledge of the internal conversions and processing it seems like the safest bet. I actually believe Windows always does its mixing at no lower than 24 bits so there's no sense in converting the output to 16 bits.
10. 100+ dB DR excessive: Debatable. It's true rooms are noisy. Headphones can get pretty quiet. I would demand more than 100 dB of dynamic range from any source and preamp device. It's more a question of whether the device is decently designed.
 
Yes I would say it depends, in any case it is absolutely necessary to separate the transducers from the rest.
The electronics are generally, except for bias, designed to be as transparent as possible and are generally indistinct in ABX.
The speakers (headphones also have a membrane!) have more of a sound but not always easy to highlight if you do not know which headphones you have on your ear or the price of the speaker you are listening to. In any case the maxim you get what you pay for does not apply because of the various deficiencies of our hearing, with a physiological curve to make matters worse.
 
while I was never actually a big audiphile, I've always been interested in dipping into this stuff, unfortunately I haven't been able to find a community free of audio fools nonsense. I only had my own reasoning and whatever limited equipment I could personally purchase to try to find truths about what actually sounds good. Until recently when I found ASR of course. I've read as much as I can but I just wanna throw some opinions out there and ask that you give some brief thoughts, just like are they right or are they complete nonsense:
  1. most modern DACs are transparent
  2. 320k CBR MP3 is transparent with most normal music content
  3. The latest Apple and Beats wireless headphones sound almost the same as a neutral "audiophile" wired system for normal music content
  4. A macbook pro with "advanced support for high-impedence headphones" sounds the same as any other dedicated headphone amp, including ones with balanced output
  5. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/moondrop-chu-ii-iem-review.55179/ this $20 IEM sounds as good as any other
  6. It makes no sense for "sound stage" to be an inherent property of a headphone, even if that could be done. It should instead, be a digital effect you could control
  7. the effect of the room itself has on sound is much more complicated and expensive to resolve, than finding a good set of speakers.
  8. A $100 Fosi amplifier sounds as good as any other, assuming we are talking about speakers with matching power and impedance requirements.
  9. Other than compatibility and issues with resampling, there is no performance reason to go above 16bit 44.1khz for playback
  10. if I have 25db of background noise, and I'm listening at 85db that means I can only appreciate a ~60db dynamic range. So devices with 100db+ dynamic range aren't even close to possibly being fully utilized in any realistic listening setting. That is assuming the track itself uses 60db of dynamic range, which is not common for popular music?
it seems like anywhere else people will simply say your equipment is not expensive enough, or you just have bad ears so you can't tell. Are they right to any extent at all or are they just being audio fools?

For #6, ok so I understand that since ears are different, so they will have different effects on the sound coming into the ear canal, and therefore the exact frequency response you need in an IEM for a totally transparent audio experience differs from person to person. But we will ignore this fact and pretend everyone just has the exact same ears where the harman target works perfectly. And "good" means it sounds transparent, like if you were to make a binaural recording of something, and play it through these IEMs, it sounds the same as physically being there.
1. Yes
2. Usually pretty much yes
3. Maybe, but I would look at measurements before buying any new expensive headphones.
4. Maybe, see #3
5. Maybe, the measurements are good, but subjective experience of IEMs and headphones varies from person to person.
6. It's an interaction between the headphone and your ears / head / brain, so arguably kind of both/neither. Soundstage in a headphone is an illusion that can be accomplished via good synergy with your head, and/or DSP.
7. Depends on the room and the speakers, but good speakers don't fix a bad room.
8. Probably yes aside from load dependency
9. Generally yes
10. I think this is right.
 
Re: 1. Yes. Things can get iffy at >0 dBFS.
Re: 2. Yes, if you have normal, healthy hearing. Lossy formats have to make assumptions about what you can and cannot hear, and with specific forms of hearing loss these may end up being quite inaccurate.
Re: 4. Probably the case for normal, easy to drive cans, say the HD600 family. Not sure I would subject them to a sub-16 ohm planar like the Hifiman Edition XS, and vintage 600 ohm AKGs may be a tad short on maximum volume.
Re: 9. Mostly. It takes a very dynamic, generally classical recording done with good equipment and riding the volume control on a system with enough gain to get to the noise floor of 16/44, although it is very much possible. Studio environments can achieve dynamic range past 16 bit easily, so proper dithering has to be applied during downconversion in production. (Fun fact: Lossy formats are generally floating point based and as such can handle a much greater global dynamic range than straight 16 bit audio, although not generally instantaneously. Which is to say, they would handle both rocket boosters and mouse farts fine if just one is present, but the latter would generally fall prey to data reduction if both were to be present at the same time. So it does make sense to generate MP3/AAC etc. from >16-bit material.)
Re: 10. You are comparing apples and oranges.
a) Ambient noise typically has a spectrum falling with frequency (as does the noise of condenser type microphones), while electronic noise tends to be quite flat. Typical low in-room ambient noise generally does not preclude you from hearing white noise down to about 4 dB SPL during speaker playback, or somewhere a tad under 20 dB SPL over headphones assuming it is uncorrelated in left and right channels. (Yes, that actually makes headphone playback less critical. Basically, noise firmly sticking to one of your ears blends in with all the auditory system's internal racket from blood flow and whatnot, which our brain is trying very hard to filter out for obvious reasons. Correlation and being able to move your head relative to the sound sound drops hearing threshold a lot. You may have noticed how much easier telephony is through a binaural headset rather than the monaural variety or a regular phone handset.)
b) If you are saying you are listening at 85 dB, what do you mean by that - average or peak? The latter is what's relevant to dynamic range calculations. Most people should be more than happy with 110 dB peak, I probably wouldn't need more than 100.
As a rule of thumb, you need about 100-110 dB of instantaneous dynamic range for a "proper" speaker playback system (less for basic desktop audio), and roughly 90 dB for headphones. The requirements on equipment will grow when there is a mismatch in sensitivity. If the DAC/preamp can output higher levels than required for full power in the power amp, tough luck, that dynamic range is lost. A 100 dB/W/m horn monstrosity is also going to reveal the noise floor much more easily than a regular 85 dB/W/m bookshelf speaker, and the spread in the IEM and headphone space is even greater and arguably amounting to 40+ dB (it's just that headphone amps have gotten very good at accomodating the diversity).
 
Last edited:
  1. most modern DACs are transparent

    I agree, good ones should, the tech is mature and cheap.

  2. 320k CBR MP3 is transparent with most normal music content

    I don't agree, but the quality of 320CBR MP3 is good enough for most systems to sound the same. It's an obsolete format altough and i don't get mp3's anymore (but still listen to older i have in 320CBR format.

  3. The latest Apple and Beats wireless headphones sound almost the same as a neutral "audiophile" wired system for normal music content

    I did not test them, but the older certainly weren't, and good headphones are not that expensive. But i don't listen headphones anymore...

  4. A macbook pro with "advanced support for high-impedence headphones" sounds the same as any other dedicated headphone amp, including ones with balanced output

    No, but it sounds quiet decent. A good dedicated headphone amp will adapt better to different headphones.

  5. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/moondrop-chu-ii-iem-review.55179/ this $20 IEM sounds as good as any other

    no experience

  6. It makes no sense for "sound stage" to be an inherent property of a headphone, even if that could be done. It should instead, be a digital effect you could control

    soundstage sit in the mixes, not in your speakers. If you set them up right they will give you the full soundstage that is in the mixes. Headphones should not have that issue that the wrong setup limits it.

  7. the effect of the room itself has on sound is much more complicated and expensive to resolve, than finding a good set of speakers.

    This was the case, but with modern cheap measurement tools and room correction on dsp's this is less the case. You can solve +90% of the issues for less than 1K on gear, and some hours of studying the subject and tweaking.

  8. A $100 Fosi amplifier sounds as good as any other, assuming we are talking about speakers with matching power and impedance requirements.

    Not fullly, some amps are still better sounding, but a 100$ Fosi amp sounds better than most way more expensive amplifiers, and is for many situations good enough.

  9. Other than compatibility and issues with resampling, there is no performance reason to go above 16bit 44.1khz for playback

    True

  10. if I have 25db of background noise, and I'm listening at 85db that means I can only appreciate a ~60db dynamic range. So devices with 100db+ dynamic range aren't even close to possibly being fully utilized in any realistic listening setting. That is assuming the track itself uses 60db of dynamic range, which is not common for popular music?

    Not true as explained by people who are far more knowledgable that me above.
 
2. no to the future of the codec, if pointed differences in highs can be observed by listening. It's old codec and all lousy ones shave highs more or less aggressive.
3. Absolutely not, not even going into discussion about headaphones but room itself. And there aren't all that great headphones either the advanced V2 H AAC is better to extent then MP3 to almost pass but it's not low latency.
4 really don't know neither the stage or OPAMP and even if it's superb (no it ain't but probably not bad) but you can't generalise like that as ther are some that will peek at 14V and ones that will require 3~4 mV for mid SPL target.
5 that mid bass nitch, and bust, and uneven can sound booming and ring a bit and not very friendly to EQ (as uneven). But really and for 20$ hard to complain.
6 pitch, reverb and bandwidth are very old even analog effects it's just never really whose called like that. With all processing available i prefer simple old ones and only for movies use surround processing (again old direct drive filters).
7 it isn't all that hard if it's not horror room and as long as you close follow carefully placement adjustments and use simulator for it in the process. It takes one carefully calculated and shaped PEQ peak filter (for room fundamental).
8 no.
10 read a lot about dynamic range in music (a bit about loudness wars and why it whose devastating) and profiles for big cinema theatres with huge speakers (THX DR 24), psy relative loudness perception and same to SPL and normalisation (of signal lv).
You can spend a lifetime going in deep... Instead take it as a hobby and set a goal for yourself. For example learning to make my own semi costume EQ's for headphones. Take it nice and easy from interpreting measurements and supposed target's and how to math their model (HAT+ ear). Than take a look at Auto-EQ and read how to use it and get understanding regarding filters and export forms it supports.
Play with PEQ manually by hand (drawing it like painting in REW for example) play with low self filler at 105 Hz Q 071 to SPL afterwards to understand how equal loudness compensation work's and so on. Main thing is that you have a good time and enjoy it. Have a nice time and welcome to ASR.
 
It is important to remember that headphones and IEM's (1) can never be measured with any degree of certainty because the measurement depends on the test fixture, and (2) the measured performance of the headphone can be thrown out the window the moment you place the headphone on your head. This is because your HRTF is not the same as the test fixture's HRTF.

ALL headphones and IEM's need to be EQ'ed, no matter how perfectly they seem to comply with the Harman curve. In general, any measurement between 300Hz - 3kHz is likely to be accurate. Above 3kHz, variances due to ear canal length, pinna shape, etc will start to vary the response. Below 300Hz, issues such as adequacy of the seal, clamping pressure, etc. will vary the response.

The most important (IMO!) measurement for headphones/IEM's is (1) how close it is to the Harman curve it is in the first place, because the closer it is the less it needs to be EQ'ed. I do not look for perfect compliance, I look for "ballpark" compliance. And (2) whether it has low distortion in <300Hz and >3kHz because I will be EQ'ing those.

Some things can not be measured with headphones, e.g. how "spacious" it sounds. If someone is aware of a measurement that shows why an open back headphone sounds more spacious than a closed back one, I would be interested. Then there are all the non-measurable aspects of headphones - comfort, build quality, whether the cable transmits microphonics, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I am big on measurements. But we have to be honest about what we can measure and what we can not, or even if the measurements we take are meaningful or not. Sometimes you just have to put a headphone on your head and listen.
 
@Keith_W answer is reverberation of the large box vs tiny one but you lost possibility for even or more low and sub bass much like with speakers cabinets with open or in outer ear shell designs. We simply don't react naturally on no noise and full isolation and crosstalk as such doesn't exist in natural environment. So panning between two chenels and a bit of wet reverb helps and so does bandwidth limiter/expander regarding depth. For things like music that's usually enough. For movies all do old Sonitus FX surround still works surprisingly good (at least regarding me) and in more comfortable form for video player's (direct show MS).
We are funny bunch, and so what nervous you the most with speakers, the room is the same thing you miss the most on earphones/headphones especially seal of closed ones.
 
while I was never actually a big audiphile, I've always been interested in dipping into this stuff, unfortunately I haven't been able to find a community free of audio fools nonsense. I only had my own reasoning and whatever limited equipment I could personally purchase to try to find truths about what actually sounds good. Until recently when I found ASR of course. I've read as much as I can but I just wanna throw some opinions out there and ask that you give some brief thoughts, just like are they right or are they complete nonsense:
  1. most modern DACs are transparent
  2. 320k CBR MP3 is transparent with most normal music content
  3. The latest Apple and Beats wireless headphones sound almost the same as a neutral "audiophile" wired system for normal music content
  4. A macbook pro with "advanced support for high-impedence headphones" sounds the same as any other dedicated headphone amp, including ones with balanced output
  5. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/moondrop-chu-ii-iem-review.55179/ this $20 IEM sounds as good as any other
  6. It makes no sense for "sound stage" to be an inherent property of a headphone, even if that could be done. It should instead, be a digital effect you could control
  7. the effect of the room itself has on sound is much more complicated and expensive to resolve, than finding a good set of speakers.
  8. A $100 Fosi amplifier sounds as good as any other, assuming we are talking about speakers with matching power and impedance requirements.
  9. Other than compatibility and issues with resampling, there is no performance reason to go above 16bit 44.1khz for playback
  10. if I have 25db of background noise, and I'm listening at 85db that means I can only appreciate a ~60db dynamic range. So devices with 100db+ dynamic range aren't even close to possibly being fully utilized in any realistic listening setting. That is assuming the track itself uses 60db of dynamic range, which is not common for popular music?
it seems like anywhere else people will simply say your equipment is not expensive enough, or you just have bad ears so you can't tell. Are they right to any extent at all or are they just being audio fools?

For #6, ok so I understand that since ears are different, so they will have different effects on the sound coming into the ear canal, and therefore the exact frequency response you need in an IEM for a totally transparent audio experience differs from person to person. But we will ignore this fact and pretend everyone just has the exact same ears where the harman target works perfectly. And "good" means it sounds transparent, like if you were to make a binaural recording of something, and play it through these IEMs, it sounds the same as physically being there.
1. dont let people fool you, there are good dacs, and flat sounding dacs. its all about the components in the hardware. just find one you like. a lot of cheapo dacs will all sound the same. i use a tube dac with a built in super clock or reclock as people say. i can alter its dynamic frequency performance buy changing tubes. and it does make a difference. even if the nay sayers say otherwise. just find one you like listening to, that's all that matters.

2. usually anything at 320 is fine. the issue is the file compression. a 320 bit rate file that was compressed to a smaller file format will degrade the sound quality so just make sure you get he right files. most nerds have streaming services where they rip the high end files right off the net and put them on pirate bay etc. so you can find the HIGH END files, without needing a service. but a service is nice. 44/192 is 44/192 no matter how you dice it. you dont need a streamer to get the absolute best file quality. you can dial in your computer to function as a high end streamer. the bonus is windows for instance includes the licensing for bit rate correction unlike stand alone streamers where the manufactures didnt pay for the licensing(some models do and charge for it) to activate the feature in the built in cpus. so windows having the licensing built in, if your streaming service or software includes additions for bit rate correction you will get it at no extra cost.

3. beats and similar high brands like that are absolute junk, made from garbage and sound horrible. sue me.

4. macbook sells on bogus claims left and right. dont feed into it. asus gamer and high end motherboards have better sound quality than any mac out of the box. sue me. ergo, if you use a dac, and send out in digital signal the motherboards sound quality doesn't matter because you are sending the file to the dac.

7. there's a store on the east coast(i think its called foam n more) that sells really cheap roll out. don't get fooled by these bogus claims for fabric fancy panels or foam panels. its all bogus sales gimmick that's expensive, you don't need to get hosed for sound management. even wool blankets from goodwill work.. go buy the 3 or 4 inch pyramid or triangle 4x8 foot roll out sheets and cover complex regions to dull and kill reflections and echos. problem solved you can get treatment roll outs for like 30 bucks per 4x8 foot roll out.

8. amps, speakers, are not built the same. that's is like the heart of your concerto arena. buy what you can afford and sounds good. don't listen to salesmen or the poors running around shaming you for buying something nice. just listen with your ears. if you plan to crank it up and party hard like Wayne and Garth, well you'll see how fast a cheap unit burns out or sounds bad after some abuse. save, and spend where you feel comfortable.

9. subjective. see there are hardware that can handle more, but im not sure its super needed. it was said that higher sampling rates does affect transformer dynamics within how the analog converters in the hardware within the dac perform. im not sure tho, time will tell. people don't really have a easy way to measure this phenomenon if it does exist.

10. treat your area/room as best as you can i have a semi noisy environment during the day. for about 3-4 hundred bucks i killed every noise possible and made a huge difference with roll outs.
 
Last edited:
You might enjoy Audiophoolery

2. 320k CBR MP3 is transparent with most normal music content.
It also depends on the listener's ability to hear compression artifacts. I've intentionally avoided trying to train myself to hear them... If I'm not noticing them now, I don't want to start hearing defects or to start trying to hear defects!

6. It makes no sense for "sound stage" to be an inherent property of a headphone.
The listener's brain is the biggest factor. Headphone Soundstage Survey

10. if I have 25db of background noise, and I'm listening at 85db that means I can only appreciate a ~60db dynamic range. So devices with 100db+ dynamic range aren't even close to possibly being fully utilized in any realistic listening setting. That is assuming the track itself uses 60db of dynamic range, which is not common for popular music?
It depends on the nature of the noise (and the nature of the signal). You can generally hear sounds quieter than the noise mixed-in with the noise. And it depends on how "dynamic range" is defined. Generally, I find any audible electrical noise from the speakers to be more offensive/annoying than the "natural" acoustic noise in the room.
 
It is important to remember that headphones and IEM's (1) can never be measured with any degree of certainty because the measurement depends on the test fixture, and (2) the measured performance of the headphone can be thrown out the window the moment you place the headphone on your head. This is because your HRTF is not the same as the test fixture's HRTF.

ALL headphones and IEM's need to be EQ'ed, no matter how perfectly they seem to comply with the Harman curve. In general, any measurement between 300Hz - 3kHz is likely to be accurate. Above 3kHz, variances due to ear canal length, pinna shape, etc will start to vary the response. Below 300Hz, issues such as adequacy of the seal, clamping pressure, etc. will vary the response.

The most important (IMO!) measurement for headphones/IEM's is (1) how close it is to the Harman curve it is in the first place, because the closer it is the less it needs to be EQ'ed. I do not look for perfect compliance, I look for "ballpark" compliance. And (2) whether it has low distortion in <300Hz and >3kHz because I will be EQ'ing those.

Some things can not be measured with headphones, e.g. how "spacious" it sounds. If someone is aware of a measurement that shows why an open back headphone sounds more spacious than a closed back one, I would be interested. Then there are all the non-measurable aspects of headphones - comfort, build quality, whether the cable transmits microphonics, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I am big on measurements. But we have to be honest about what we can measure and what we can not, or even if the measurements we take are meaningful or not. Sometimes you just have to put a headphone on your head and listen.
i agree with you since most headphones just reproduce the sound. the stage is just whats present in the recording ya know. ive seen older regular old headphones and listened to them, and they sounded great. im not into headphones but i have a buddy who is bc he used to work in a cubicle and was in to that for years. he showed me high high end name brand super high advertised brands and they were shit compared to others. you just sorta need to know good models and brands. the dr dre beats units are build with the bare minimum inside and once you crank them everything is torched instantly and over time it gets worse, not sweeter like with other headphones. those name brand companies dont care, the amount of money the pay in royalties or front runners to help them sell costs them more than the components to make and assemble them.
 
With the caveat that the topic of headphones is eye-glazingly boring to me, the list looks reasonable enough

but what I really admire is the thread title. :)
 
i can alter its dynamic frequency performance buy changing tubes. and it does make a difference. even if the nay sayers say otherwise. just find one you like listening to, that's all that matters.
I'm going to go ahead and argue that a tube pre having a sound doesn't mean DACs have "a sound".
3. beats and similar high brands like that are absolute junk, made from garbage and sound horrible. sue me.
This was 100% true 10+ years ago, but after the Apple acquisition Beats went to a reasonable, if not amazing frequency profile: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ats-studio-pro-are-remarkably-accurate.48029/

go buy the 3 or 4 inch pyramid or triangle 4x8 foot roll out sheets and cover complex regions to dull and kill reflections and echos. problem solved you can get treatment roll outs for like 30 bucks per 4x8 foot roll out
Speaking as someone who used to sell that stuff for a living, DO NOT DO THIS.

For one thing, if you buy foam that isn't designated for acoustic treatment it's probably not flame-treated. It could get very dangerous, very fast, if it is exposed to flame. There is a reason that building codes require stuff like this to be fire-rated.

Secondly, it just doesn't work very well for the acoustic problems in most rooms. And if you get the flame-treated stuff it's not very cost effective.
 
Last edited:
most modern DACs are transparent
Yes, enough transparency
Personally, I've tested over 50 IEMs and I can tell you the best sounding ones will be whichever you like the tuning the most. I own 7hz zero 2 and Truthear Hexa, similar tuning but Hexas are way more detailed and it comes to a point of diminishing returns. I've acquired Simgot SuperMix 4 and it's a little bit better than Hexas but not 2 times better ($80 vs $150), if I had to set a percentage, I'd say 5%
Other than compatibility and issues with resampling, there is no performance reason to go above 16bit 44.1khz for playback
Agree

320k CBR MP3 is transparent with most normal music content
If you meant Ogg Vorbis used by Spotify, I think so
 
Not much into headphones myself but you have a lot of the rest in order. Welcome aboard.
 
Back
Top Bottom