Can we agree headphone amplifiers are solved?

[Hrodulf]

Meaning no preference is possible. They exceed the limits of human perception.

I've conducted blind tests and have seen people showing preference to a more distorting (both over and under perceptual limit) piece of electronics. Heck I've even done tests with 128kbps MP3 and FLAC and some folks would reliably prefer MP3. This gels well with Butterworth's article where he states that measurements show the performance of electronics, but listener preference is fickle.

The question remains - what is the aim of audio electronics? Should we berate people for listening to what they prefer even if they hate the sound of the better measuring alternative?

 

[sergeauckland]

I've conducted blind tests and have seen people showing preference to a more distorting (both over and under perceptual limit) piece of electronics. Heck I've even done tests with 128kbps MP3 and FLAC and some folks would reliably prefer MP3. This gels well with Butterworth's article where he states that measurements show the performance of electronics, but listener preference is fickle.

The question remains - what is the aim of audio electronics? Should we berate people for listening to what they prefer even if they hate the sound of the better measuring alternative?

Yes, they should be horsewhipped on the steps of their club, and shunned by polite society.

Hurrumph!

S.

 

[solderdude]

The question remains - what is the aim of audio electronics? Should we berate people for listening to what they prefer even if they hate the sound of the better measuring alternative?

Why would one have to choose ?
There are people with certain preferences and they (like to) think this can be resolved with 'special amplifiers' that may well not be 'transparent'.
There is a market for this. Let them.
There are people that are convinced an amp should not change the sound and prefer an amp that is 'truthful'. Power to them.
Extremist exist on both 'sides'.

Then there are people that have no idea, or don't mind either solution as long as it works for them.

The question here is whether or not headphone amplifiers are 'solved'.
There is only one answer. Yes it is solved.
But that does not mean everyone desires the same solution.

The statement that 'special sound amplifiers' are better, of course, can also be split into 2 answers.
Better than technically proficient amplifiers they are not.
Better sounding to an individual they may well be.

The word 'better' and in what context it is used is basically the major point of discussion here. Accompanied by questioning the method with which the determination of 'better' has been established.

 

[Pluto]

ambisonics doesn't quite do it

Good enough for me though… I've done some wonderful stuff with a Soundfield mic. and the matrix to play it back over 7 speakers (which, at a time when Dolby hadn't even dreamed of 5.1, was considered ridiculous).

Even if Ambisonics “doesn't quite do it” it remains, nonetheless, an essentially open source answer to the problem. Sadly, the only further development in this field is likely to be proprietary.

If people realised that it was possible to assemble a reasonable Soundfield playback system for a relatively modest sum, made possible by the availability of half-decent active monitors on every street corner, interest in the concept might revive.

 

[bobbooo]

I've conducted blind tests and have seen people showing preference to a more distorting (both over and under perceptual limit) piece of electronics. Heck I've even done tests with 128kbps MP3 and FLAC and some folks would reliably prefer MP3. This gels well with Butterworth's article where he states that measurements show the performance of electronics, but listener preference is fickle.

The question remains - what is the aim of audio electronics? Should we berate people for listening to what they prefer even if they hate the sound of the better measuring alternative?

Optional DSP can cater for tastes in distortion/degradation (which will often change depending on the source material). You don't need to compromise hardware performance and well recorded/mastered music for that.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've conducted blind tests and have seen people showing preference to a more distorting (both over and under perceptual limit) piece of electronics. Heck I've even done tests with 128kbps MP3 and FLAC and some folks would reliably prefer MP3. This gels well with Butterworth's article where he states that measurements show the performance of electronics, but listener preference is fickle.

The question remains - what is the aim of audio electronics? Should we berate people for listening to what they prefer even if they hate the sound of the better measuring alternative?

128 kbps MP3 is not transparent. If it were you couldn't have shown a preference.

People can prefer what they want. If we deliver them a transparent signal they can alter it to taste. If you deliver to them a signal with character different from fidelity you've limited what is possible with inferior source material.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Good enough for me though… I've done some wonderful stuff with a Soundfield mic. and the matrix to play it back over 7 speakers (which, at a time when Dolby hadn't even dreamed of 5.1, was considered ridiculous).

Even if Ambisonics “doesn't quite do it” it remains, nonetheless, an essentially open source answer to the problem. Sadly, the only further development in this field is likely to be proprietary.

If people realised that it was possible to assemble a reasonable Soundfield playback system for a relatively modest sum, made possible by the availability of half-decent active monitors on every street corner, interest in the concept might revive.

Maybe so. I've no love for Dolby et al and the continuously forever evolving proprietary formats without end.

I think the obvious take home message is more than two speakers is too much for a mass market to evolve of any size.

 

[solderdude]

Hard to emulate the effect of a higher output resistance for all existing headphones and the tonal change that this brings ?
This, along with specific harmonic changes (due to used components) is hard to emulate as well.

Sure, some profiles of distortion can be emulated (done with guitar amps often) and mostly this also includes speaker behavior of a specific amp as well. Sure you can emulate a few different harmonic distortion profiles from a few analyzed amps (the transfer function).
That, however, is not what those people want because you cannot emulate the 'magic' owners of said amps are convinced they have.

In the end it is great that a huge variation exists to cater for all people and be happy with it.
Myself I would for technically sufficient (which is already technically exceeded with huge margins) but not everyone is the same, fortunately.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The question is, what signal? They may be transparent and exceed the limits of perception when playing sine tones, but what about the thing we actually use them to play and listen to, music? Is there any evidence of a monotonic correlation between DAC/amps' fidelity/degradation of a sine signal and their fidelity/degradation of a music signal? There is in fact some suggestive evidence any such correlation is actually poor, which could mean a device that is audibly transparent when playing sine tones may not be transparent when playing music.

(By the way, I'd argue the exact same criteria applies to transducers - fidelity to the source. Except in this case the 'source' is the sound the engineer heard from their studio monitors when mastering the music you're listening to.)

No the source is the signal. If want to recreate what the sound engineer heard you'll need that information and to use the same gear in the same situation. Otherwise you are just muddying waters to no benefit to anyone.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I've conducted blind tests and have seen people showing preference to a more distorting (both over and under perceptual limit) piece of electronics. Heck I've even done tests with 128kbps MP3 and FLAC and some folks would reliably prefer MP3. This gels well with Butterworth's article where he states that measurements show the performance of electronics, but listener preference is fickle.

The question remains - what is the aim of audio electronics? Should we berate people for listening to what they prefer even if they hate the sound of the better measuring alternative?

As a person who loves distorted electric guitar and noisy punk rock, I can certainly understand how I might in a blind listening test prefer a certain sound characteristic of one component over another even though that component was actually doing it's "job" in a less technically perfect manner. That in no way means I have to be a slave to that preference. I fundamentally understand that the task of an amp is to amplify. I don't want an amp that EQs everything I send through it as well. I'll handle that with a component (or software) that is designed for that and that allows me to have complete control of that. This is where measurements point the way for me. I can find measured "perfection" without having to rely on my flawed, unreliable hearing system.

 

[MSTARK]

Trick is to make it customer friendly.
Most people just want to press play and enjoy the music.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Trick is to make it customer friendly.
Most people just want to press play and enjoy the music.

Yeah, but who cares? The question isn't "are headphone amps solved for the general public?" The general public couldn't care less about headphone amps. Most people barely know there is such a thing. Same goes for dacs. Amps and dacs have been solved forever for the general public. So have speakers. It's all already perfect as far as "most" people are concerned.

 

[solderdude]

Technically headphone amps and DACs are 'solved'.

Human preference/taste/convictions is the part that makes it seem as if it isn't 'solved' to many people.

 

[MSTARK]

Yeah, but who cares? The question isn't "are headphone amps solved for the general public?" The general public couldn't care less about headphone amps. Most people barely know there is such a thing. Same goes for dacs. Amps and dacs have been solved forever for the general public. So have speakers. It's all already perfect as far as "most" people are concerned.

Cost of innovation have to be profitable. Therefor, it has to be customer friendly.
Headphone amplification did improved a lot so did DAC technology.
Integrating it all with today’s most popular media formats and streaming services is something that needs a bit more attention IMHO.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Cost of innovation have to be profitable. Therefor, it has to be customer friendly.
Headphone amplification did improved a lot so did DAC technology.
Integrating it all with today’s most popular media formats and streaming services is something that needs a bit more attention IMHO.

Again, that's not really what we're discussing here. That's not the "solved" we're talking about.

 

[MSTARK]

Technically headphone amps and DACs are 'solved'.

Human preference/taste/convictions is the part that makes it seem as if it isn't 'solved' to many people.

As tribal as humans are, we still pride ourselves with self identity. You just can’t make ONE amp, ONE headphone, ONE of anything that will suit everyone. No matter how good or SOTA it is.

 

[MSTARK]

Again, that's not really what we're discussing here. That's not the "solved" we're talking about.

If you are just talking about amplification then sure, it has come pretty far (as far as price to performance ratio is concerned). And there will always be room for improvement.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

As tribal as humans are, we still pride ourselves with self identity. You just can’t make ONE amp, ONE headphone, ONE of anything that will suit everyone. No matter how good or SOTA it is.

No, but in a technical sense, we could stop making headphone amps and dacs now. Theoretically, you could put the guts of an L30 or an E30 in a bunch of different boxes and sell them as different amps and dacs and who'd be the wiser?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

If you are just talking about amplification then sure, it has come pretty far (as far as price to performance ratio is concerned). And there will always be room for improvement. It always is.

Audible improvement?

 

[MSTARK]

Audible improvement?

Audible improvement?

To some degree. But mostly, bringing higher performance to more affordable market.