Dan Clark Stealth Review (State of the Art Headphone)

[Purité Audio]

It is pretty easy to switch between settings on the RME’s.
Keith

 

[Hark01]

I am interested in the answer to this.
Amirs review and comments "You need a beefy headphone amplifier to drive the Stealth: " and "I was fine using my RME ADI-2 DAC so it doesn't have to be crazy power" provides little help to zero in on the answer to this question. It seems to be contradictory and includes very subjective wording since its not specified what levels he listened at nor what settings the RME was using during listening

Sensitivity is about 99db/VRMS. It should be easy to drive.

 

[muslhead]

Sensitivity is about 99db/VRMS. It should be easy to drive.

seems to contradict Amirs statement "You need a beefy headphone amplifier to drive the Stealth "
Do i believe someone with 5 posts or the owner of this website ... hmmm tough decision I am going to have to think about it.

 

[ExquirentibusVeritatem]

I have no idea what point you’re trying to make now.

The point is that there are plenty of other websites and forums that provide subjective impressions that are not linked to any objective measurements already. I think if this forum is trying to promote the idea that we can determine whether or not a headphone sounds good based on the objective measurements and not any subjective descriptions such as spatial qualities (aka soundstage), then we should be removing that information from the reviews. If not, I think we need to ask more questions as to how these subjective experiences can be linked to objective measurements. If there are no measurements, we need to question whether or not those experiences are real or just bias.

seems to contradict Amirs statement "You need a beefy headphone amplifier to drive the Stealth "
Do i believe someone with 5 posts or the owner of this website ... hmmm tough decision I am going to have to think about it.

I know someone who just received their stealth. It definitely requires a beefy headphone amplifier to drive the stealth.

 

[dorirod]

Sensitivity is about 99db/VRMS. It should be easy to drive.

99 dB/V SPL is 83 dB/mW SPL, requires more than 4V to go to 120dB SPL right? 2V, 174mW, 107dB SPL; 4V, 696mW, 112dB SPL.

 

[solderdude]

I am interested in the answer to this.
Amirs review and comments "You need a beefy headphone amplifier to drive the Stealth: " and "I was fine using my RME ADI-2 DAC so it doesn't have to be crazy power" provides little help to zero in on the answer to this question. It seems to be contradictory and includes very subjective wording since its not specified what levels he listened at nor what settings the RME was using during listening

99dB/V and 82.5dB/mW does require a beefy amp to reach 120dB SPL peaks undistorted but will be well worth it for those that like to turn it up for a minute or so at immensely impressive levels.
That requires 11V = 5.5W
For music enjoyment and turning up the volume to comfortable loud levels that one can endure for a whole song the numbers are: 3.5V (0.5W) which is possible with many desktop amps.
As the impedance is 23ohm ensure the amp in question can drive at least 0.7W in 16ohm.

 

[Hark01]

seems to contradict Amirs statement "You need a beefy headphone amplifier to drive the Stealth "
Do i believe someone with 5 posts or the owner of this website ... hmmm tough decision I am going to have to think about it.

Trust facts, not authorities.

 

[muslhead]

99dB/V and 82.5dB/mW does require a beefy amp to reach 120dB SPL peaks undistorted but will be well worth it for those that like to turn it up for a minute or so at immensely impressive levels.
That requires 11V = 5.5W
For music enjoyment and turning up the volume to comfortable loud levels that one can endure for a whole song the numbers are: 3.5V (0.5W) which is possible with many desktop amps.
As the impedance is 23ohm ensure the amp in question can drive at least 0.7W in 16ohm.

Thanks, solderdude. Love your responses as they are always helpful and backed by numbers and/or objective data.

 

[Shazb0t]

99dB/V and 82.5dB/mW does require a beefy amp to reach 120dB SPL peaks undistorted but will be well worth it for those that like to turn it up for a minute or so at immensely impressive levels.
That requires 11V = 5.5W
For music enjoyment and turning up the volume to comfortable loud levels that one can endure for a whole song the numbers are: 3.5V (0.5W) which is possible with many desktop amps.
As the impedance is 23ohm ensure the amp in question can drive at least 0.7W in 16ohm.

Sensitivity is about 99db/VRMS. It should be easy to drive.

Trust facts, not authorities.

But you were wrong??

 

[muslhead]

But you were wrong??

LOL

 

[preload]

The point is that there are plenty of other websites and forums that provide subjective impressions that are not linked to any objective measurements already. I think if this forum is trying to promote the idea that we can determine whether or not a headphone sounds good based on the objective measurements and not any subjective descriptions such as spatial qualities (aka soundstage), then we should be removing that information from the reviews.

Still not following. The understanding of how objective measurements translate to perceived sound quality is incomplete. Everyone is still learning. This is why it is ESSENTIAL that subjective impressions, including perception of soundstage, are reported so that we can begin to better correlate them with available measurements. If we remove subjective descriptions of sound quality from the reviews and forum responses, how are we supposed to understand how to interpret the measurements?

 

[ExquirentibusVeritatem]

Still not following. The understanding of how objective measurements translate to perceived sound quality is incomplete. Everyone is still learning. This is why it is ESSENTIAL that subjective impressions, including perception of soundstage, are reported so that we can begin to better correlate them with available measurements. If we remove subjective descriptions of sound quality from the reviews and forum responses, how are we supposed to understand how to interpret the measurements?

By comparing the results of other measurements of other headphones. This was stated in this very thread:

"The measurements speak for themselves and don't need my interpretation in this case. Interpretation is only necessary when the results are messy which is not the case here."

You were the one that singled me out so I'm just trying to make the point that there is currently no "science" that is being done to link the objective and subjective in these reviews. The perception of soundstage is only mentioned in the listening test but does not try to correlate that with any of the measurements shown. If there is no linkage that can be readily seen, why include soundstage without the necessary proof to back it up? There is currently no value added unless there is a strong evidence that the soundstage can be measurably compared against something like the HD800.

So if I were to agree with you that everyone is still learning, I think it would be more beneficial to have a separate study of how soundstage can be measured instead of adding it as part of the subjective section. Soundstage seems to be a pretty important aspect of a headphone to just leave to every reviewer's subjective scale.

 

[preload]

You were the one that singled me out so I'm just trying to make the point that there is currently no "science" that is being done to link the objective and subjective in these reviews.

I think you're confusing a scientific experiment with an observational report. A scientific experiment would attempt to answer a question, such as "how does objective measurement A correlate with subjective perception B." Whereas, an observational report is simply hypothesis-generating, in that it describes a phenomenon in terms of measurements and observations. Reviews are not scientific experiments, they are observational by definition. However, reporting observations is still part of a scientific process, particularly if folks use them to generate hypothesis and test them.

 

[muslhead]

The point is that there are plenty of other websites and forums that provide subjective impressions that are not linked to any objective measurements already. I think if this forum is trying to promote the idea that we can determine whether or not a headphone sounds good based on the objective measurements and not any subjective descriptions such as spatial qualities (aka soundstage), then we should be removing that information from the reviews. If not, I think we need to ask more questions as to how these subjective experiences can be linked to objective measurements. If there are no measurements, we need to question whether or not those experiences are real or just bias.



I know someone who just received their stealth. It definitely requires a beefy headphone amplifier to drive the stealth.

Good to know doesnt help much so can you define beefy? Is it like McDonalds beefy or Golds Gym beefy?
Seriously, i dont consider the RME to be beefy but Amir says its plenty

 

[ExquirentibusVeritatem]

Good to know doesnt help much so can you define beefy? Is it like McDonalds beefy or Golds Gym beefy?
Seriously, i dont consider the RME to be beefy but Amir says its plenty

I don't consider RME beefy either. This is why descriptions like "plenty" or "beefy" have no place here IMO.

 

[ExquirentibusVeritatem]

I think you're confusing a scientific experiment with an observational report. A scientific experiment would attempt to answer a question, such as "how does objective measurement A correlate with subjective perception B." Whereas, an observational report is simply hypothesis-generating, in that it describes a phenomenon in terms of measurements and observations. Reviews are not scientific experiments, they are observational by definition. However, reporting observations is still part of a scientific process, particularly if folks use them to generate hypothesis and test them.

This is all fine as long as the review is written as an observational report. There is no method of observation described in the subjective listening tests. There is only the experience explained with no way for the reader to recreate or get a base line of how these conclusions were formed. Which headphones were compared? Why was the experience transformative? etc etc. At most you could call a review an observation report but I would still call it an exaggeration.

 

[preload]

I don't consider RME beefy either. This is why descriptions like "plenty" or "beefy" have no place here IMO.

Out of curiosity, why do you feel personally entitled to determine what words can and can't be used here? Are you sponsoring this forum? Are you a world renowned scientist? Serious question.

 

[ExquirentibusVeritatem]

Out of curiosity, why do you feel personally entitled to determine what words can and can't be used here? Are you sponsoring this forum? Are you a world renowned scientist? Serious question.

I'm just trying to push this forum into what it's aiming to do. If this seems ridiculous, you might want to consider re-reading this thread starting from page 37.

 

[preload]

I'm just trying to push this forum into what it's aiming to do. If this seems ridiculous, you might want to consider re-reading this thread starting from page 37.

Perhaps you could consider spending more time reading/observing before criticizing. You might realize that there's about 3 orders of magnitude more "science" going on here than the typical audio forum. And you might also realize that ASR is not an AES journal club.

 

[AdamG]

Please Stop arguing or I will be forced to go jump off a cliff into a cave filled with Snakes, sharp rocks and Fire, lots of fire!