is this not absurd?

[masteringhouse]

In fact, the higher end earphones/headphones often showcase the problems with low-bit rate audio.

I think that this underscores my point.

But hey, spend your money anyway that you want.

 

[RAK]

I think that this underscores my point.

But hey, spend your money anyway that you want.

It does. Which is why having higher-end phones (unless you're just buying expensive gear BECAUSE it's expensive, which does obviously happen) usually forces you to encode at higher rates. Most "audiofiles" only use PCM or Lossless, and often times run their player into an amp as well.

I'm not knocking or defending, Just sharing what tiny insight I have into that community. Personally, I don't own an MP3 player, or have any music on my computer.

Would I spend $2k on an amp. Probably not. I don't think there's any audio gear I'd spend taht much on right now. But if I had $30k of disposable income to spend on a custom home speaker system (plus creating the room) Would I do it? Sure!

 

[masteringhouse]

But if I had $30k of disposable income to spend on a custom home speaker system (plus creating the room) Would I do it? Sure!

Ah see we agree there. Why throw money at a listening environment that's compromised from the start? As Brad mentioned I wouldn't bother spending $20K on a car system either. It's like an 80 year old grandmother spending a couple of grand on breast enhancement surgery. Sure it may make her feel better about herself, but is she really that much more attractive?

As far as my room and monitoring environment I don't compromise at all. Even though I don't have a disposable $30K I've spent over that in my studio as I'm sure Brad and other MEs on the forum have.

 

[RAK]

As far as my room and monitoring environment I don't compromise at all. Even though I don't have a disposable $30K I've spent over that in my studio as I'm sure Brad and other MEs on the forum have.

No doubt for your professional studio. I was just referring to spending that much on a home entertainment system. I totally agree with what you're saying though. As most everyone around here knows, your system is only as good as your weakest link, so if you want to go the "super hi-end crazy audiofile" route, then you need all your components to play at the same level.
It would be pretty silly to have all PCM recordings on your iPod running through a headphone amp, only to stick the stock buds in your ears.

 

[masteringhouse]

As most everyone around here knows, your system is only as good as your weakest link, so if you want to go the "super hi-end crazy audiofile" route, then you need all your components to play at the same level.
It would be pretty silly to have all PCM recordings on your iPod running through a headphone amp, only to stick the stock buds in your ears.

Well said!

 

[RAK]

Well said!

Thanks!

The rest of this is filler because my above message was too short by three charecters.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

As most everyone around here knows, your system is only as good as your weakest link, so if you want to go the "super hi-end crazy audiofile" route, then you need all your components to play at the same level.

Exactly. And what most seem to forget is that the two weakest links in any chain are the source and the listener. The stuff in between can make those worse, maybe even make them different, but they can never make them any better by anything more than a psychosubjective way.

It's a freakin headphone amp. It's feeding freakin headphones. How freakin good does it have to be, and how freakin expensive can it be to make?

Last question first: If it's one guy in a garage who only makes one every two weeks because he hand-winds the transformers and hand solders the board, and he has to charge two grand in order to actually make a living making these things full time, that'll explain the cost. But it doesn't explain the cost/performance ratio. A large company with production capability available to them or to their bank who is purposely making limited runs because they are selling what would otherside be a $500 amp to a limited upscale market for two grand is purposely creating a sucker bet.

First question last. You mean to tell me that if Joe Headphone bought a $500 amp because that was the best on the maket (I haven't decided to build my $2K amp yet), that he wouldn't be completly happy with it? You mean to tell me that he'd be sitting there saying that his top-of-the-line headphone amp left him unsatisfied because it just didn't sound good enough? Or would he be going to bed with a smile of contentment on his face and swearing on a stack of bibles about the pristine, pert-near-perfect sound he was getting out of his top-of-the-line headhone amp? How could it be any better? It's the ultimate headphone amp, the best made?

It wouldn't be until the next morning when he wakes up to my ad touting an even better amp that cost 4 times as much (wow! that's GOT to be a lot better, doesn't it?) that he'd look at his $500 amp as not being good enough and he'd get that hunger in his gut for a better amp. Even if that amp WERE 4 times better (doubtful, but let's play advocate here), that still doesn't change the fact that he was perfectly happy with what he had. It doesn't matter how good or bad the new amp sounds. Like a weird version of Heisenberg, the fact that it merely exists has made the owner of the "lesser" amp suddnly perceive it as inadequate.

And for what? To play a limited 44.1/16 CD back through headphones to a bunch of "golden ears" that in double-blind tests can't regularly and reliably tell which device is which, let alone come to consensus over which sounds "better"?

I'm not saying it's about the price. It's about idiocy. On both sides of the transaction. Price is just a handy gauge for measuring it. Such products, while they may provide a better sound, are not about the sound. Like Tom said, they are about addiction to status on one end, and also about taking advantage of such addiction for maximul profit on the other.

Is it legal? Sure. Is it moral? Arguably it's not immoral. Is it right? No.

Can I do anything about it other than bitch and moan about it here? No.

Will I stop bitching an moaning about it for now? I hope so.

G.

 

[bblackwood]

Exactly. And what most seem to forget is that the two weakest links in any chain are the source and the listener. The stuff in between can make those worse, maybe even make them different, but they can never make them any better by anything more than a psychosubjective way.

It's a freakin headphone amp. It's feeding freakin headphones. How freakin good does it have to be, and how freakin expensive can it be to make?

Last question first: If it's one guy in a garage who only makes one every two weeks because he hand-winds the transformers and hand solders the board, and he has to charge two grand in order to actually make a living making these things full time, that'll explain the cost. But it doesn't explain the cost/performance ratio. A large company with production capability available to them or to their bank who is purposely making limited runs because they are selling what would otherside be a $500 amp to a limited upscale market for two grand is purposely creating a sucker bet.

First question last. You mean to tell me that if Joe Headphone bought a $500 amp because that was the best on the maket (I haven't decided to build my $2K amp yet), that he wouldn't be completly happy with it? You mean to tell me that he'd be sitting there saying that his top-of-the-line headphone amp left him unsatisfied because it just didn't sound good enough? Or would he be going to bed with a smile of contentment on his face and swearing on a stack of bibles about the pristine, pert-near-perfect sound he was getting out of his top-of-the-line headhone amp? How could it be any better? It's the ultimate headphone amp, the best made?

It wouldn't be until the next morning when he wakes up to my ad touting an even better amp that cost 4 times as much (wow! that's GOT to be a lot better, doesn't it?) that he'd look at his $500 amp as not being good enough and he'd get that hunger in his gut for a better amp. Even if that amp WERE 4 times better (doubtful, but let's play advocate here), that still doesn't change the fact that he was perfectly happy with what he had. It doesn't matter how good or bad the new amp sounds. Like a weird version of Heisenberg, the fact that it merely exists has made the owner of the "lesser" amp suddnly perceive it as inadequate.

And for what? To play a limited 44.1/16 CD back through headphones to a bunch of "golden ears" that in double-blind tests can't regularly and reliably tell which device is which, let alone come to consensus over which sounds "better"?

I'm not saying it's about the price. It's about idiocy. On both sides of the transaction. Price is just a handy gauge for measuring it. Such products, while they may provide a better sound, are not about the sound. Like Tom said, they are about addiction to status on one end, and also about taking advantage of such addiction for maximul profit on the other.

Is it legal? Sure. Is it moral? Arguably it's not immoral. Is it right? No.

Can I do anything about it other than bitch and moan about it here? No.

Will I stop bitching an moaning about it for now? I hope so.

G.

Wow, lots of assumptions there - about the listener and the qualities of the amp.

Anyway, I'm done. It seems that bias about gear one hasn't even heard is fine around here. Seems kinda weird to me...

 

[masteringhouse]

Wow, lots of assumptions there - about the listener and the qualities of the amp.

Anyway, I'm done. It seems that bias about gear one hasn't even heard is fine around here. Seems kinda weird to me...

B, I don't think any of us said the amp was bad/good or otherwise. It's the concept of overkill for what seems to me to be an inferior listening environment if one is calling it "audiophile class".

Using your example, is there a such thing as an audiophile system for a car? If your answer is yes, then that's where our opinions differ. Especially when the manufacturer claims that listening in a car is better than listening in a good room.

Again, I think our debate just comes down to a communication issue.

 

[peopleperson]

That does it. I'm gonna listen to Back in Black on my boombox.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Anyway, I'm done. It seems that bias about gear one hasn't even heard is fine around here.

I've never tried a water pic either. But I know it doesn't take an oral surgeon to figure out that I don't need to pay $39.95 to get that spinach out from between my teeth.

I've never driven a Bentley either. But I know it'll never take $250,000 to put me behind more of an automobile than I will *ever* need.

And I know that I can get a car that'll give me more performance and pleasure than I could ever exhaust, along with a 5 year supply of toothpicks and dental floss, and throw in a brand new tracking and mixing studio, a new car for my brother, and a few dozen acres of retirement land out in Galena Territory for what a single Bently and Water Pick would cost.

I also know that whether I'm playing an old Jay McShann recording or a new Yo Yo Ma, that either one will still sound wonderful and move me to tears of joy on my pedestrian Yamaha CD changer through my run-of-the-mill HR824s, which combined cost less than that single Bently headphone amp. OK, maybe the amp (with a $3000 pair of phones plugged ito it) sounds a whole lot better than my playback system. Let's say that it does. So what? Will my tears be any more sincere, any more heartfelt, any more numerous than they are now?

As engineers we can't think like that of course. As engineers we have to be as critical of the sound as we can, and we have to know we can trust our gear to tell us what we need to know. You even more than I. But I doubt I'll catch you'll be mastering anything on headphones any time sooner than you'd catch me mixing on them (at least not the parts of the mixing job where a $2000 headphone amp would make a difference.)

But as end listeners, as enjoyers of music, I believe we have to think that way. When we start caring more as end listeners about whether we're hearing overtones from Ma's cello all the way to 8kHz than we are about the way he wields his bow, we are missing the entire point. When we care more about the playback system than the music that it's playing back, we are missing the entire point.

Sure the sound quality should be quite good. But as a listener, quite good should be good enough.

The content matters far more than the reproduction. Its supposed to be about the message, not about the medium. And if one needs a Bently headphone amp to get the message in full, there's something wrong with their ears.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

I'll just expand on what G. said slightly. While I can see the benefit of a water pick (helps massage gums, cleans underneath the gumline, makes flossing a bit more fun so one will be more likely to do it, etc.) getting a high grade amp for headphones is like getting a water pick when you only have one tooth.

IMHO Audiophilia is the combined interaction of not just the electronics necessary to reproduce a great recording but also the acoustical space.

One of the technical aspects I listen for on a great recording is the interaction of the phase relationships of all of the speakers and how frequencies blend to create additional overtones, etc. Additionally room character adds another dimension that helps to add depth and character to the sound (when done right). Headphones eliminate this part of the equation to a large degree. If you're not getting the full picture by default, why bother putting together a high end system? I guess it's cool for some to go to shows and talk about how they modded their iPod to be used in a $15K headphone system like some trekkie might talk about episode x at a Star Trek Convention. However, lets not confuse that with creating great sound.

That said it is probably a great amp, now where do you plug in a set of real speakers?

 

[bblackwood]

*sigh*

Never mind...

 

[masteringhouse]

*sigh*

Never mind...

Brad, I sense frustration though I'm not sure of the reason.

Is the product of interest to you? Would you take the time for a demo or put it on your radar for a future purchase?

If none of the above I would be curious why?

 

[SonicAlbert]

How freakin good does it have to be, and how freakin expensive can it be to make?

Both these questions are for the most part irrelevant when you get into high performance audio gear.

Whether this particular headphone amp is indeed of stellar quality I don't know, as I've not heard it. But I do know that for audiophiles the search for ultimate high end audio performance is like the search for the Holy Grail.

It is an expensive hobby undertaken mostly by the well heeled like doctors, lawyers, and other folks from different walks of life who have lots of disposable income.

I remember many years ago a guy who sold audiophile playback systems lived on the floor above me, and used the front half of his apartment as his sales room. Knowing I was a musician he wanted me to hear what his speakers could do, so he invited me up one day and played me a symphony orchestra recording of Stravinsky's "Firebird" suite.

Those were still the days of LP's. The speakers were very tall ribbon's, I think they might have been as tall as me. It was truly amazing how good they sounded. On a 33 rpm stereo LP you could clearly hear where every musician in the orchestra was sitting. I've not heard anything as good since.

The cost of that system was something like $40-50k if I remember correctly, and that was over 20 years ago.

It's important to remember that for a true audiophile it cannot be good enough, and almost any expense is worth the price when going for ultimate performance.

It's a completely different mindset than you find in much home recording, where it's all about getting features and blinky lights for low bucks. In that regard it's almost like any audio compromise is okay, as long as the price is low enough. Obviously a completely different mentality from the audiophile. The unfortunate part is that so many of the people using prosumer gear designed for the home studio aren't even aware of the compromises they are making in the quality of their sound.

If only everyone could listen to a great recording played back on $50,000 speakers! It is a really educational experience.

 

[bblackwood]

Brad, I sense frustration though I'm not sure of the reason.

Because this thread is chock full of assumptions about the product and no one has even heard it. And you act like listening to headphones is akin to listening to a wire recorder - it's not. I don't get off on it but plenty do, and if you don't think you can hear things diff with headphones (hey, more detail!), then you've never heard good 'phones.

There's a reason head phones are the de-facto standard in mastering houses for checking edits and QC'ing masters, and it's not because you won't disturb the neighbors...

So you guys are taking it and throwing it out the window because of your predisposed concept of what's proper and what isn't. I find that attitude ludicrous.

Is the product of interest to you? Would you take the time for a demo or put it on your radar for a future purchase?

If none of the above I would be curious why?

I have less than zero interest in that product, but I'd like to think that the company who makes it would at leat get a fair shake (you know, someone actually listening to it) before they get thrown under the bus. We've heard them essentailly called con-artists and immoral and no one commenting on it has even heard it yet! All we have is guys saying 'it can't be that good' and 'headphones suck so why spend that much money'.

I always figured this board represented folks trying to do it the best they could with what they have, while always striving to improve. Having an open mind and all that. I'm not so sure any more.

I've said my piece, you guys can continue to berate a company and their (unheard) product amongst yourselves.

 

[masteringhouse]

I have less than zero interest in that product.

Why?

I think that your reasoning is essentially the same as mine.

 

[bblackwood]

Why?

I think that your reasoning is essentially the same as mine.

No, it's because we already have two very good headphone amps here to QC and check edits with. This one might be better, but my needs are filled nicely by what I have already.

Seriously, I'm done discussing this. See ya.

 

[RAK]

Just curious for those of you who have portable listening devices. What does you use as earphones/headphones? and has anyone tried any of the higher end in-ear earphones like the line that Shure offers (note obvious internal bias). Are you even aware that Shure offers a line of earphones for personal listening that are the same thing stage musicians use for IEMs. I had no idea this market existed before I came to Shure, but I've quickly grown to know a bit about it.

Please don't read this as I'm trying to sell you anything. It just seems like there is a general consensus to knock headphones/earphones, and I'm curious what people's experience are. There would definetly be a difference/improvement between these two scenarios.

MP3->iPod->stock earbuds
AIF->iPod->amp->custom/universal in-ear monitors (any brand)

And I hope I'm beating a dead horse, but if anyone wants to get into the tiny details of this debate, visit Head-Fi. It makes for good reading.

While I've never tried a water pick, I did get an electric toothbrush, and it made my last dentist visit SO much shorter/easier. Definetly worth it. I haven't gone to the battery powered razor though, that just seems too wierd for me.

 

[SonicAlbert]

Regarding the Bentley, I personally would buy a Bentley Coupe in a second if I had the money.

The thing is, if you have the money for a Bentley then you also have enough money for more than a water pick to go along with it.

On that subject, I also want to mention that I use an expensive "sonicwave" type toothbrush. Recommended by my dentist for my particular dental needs, it is head and shoulders above any toothbrush I've used in the past. I also have no doubt that for some a water pick (a good one) would also provide better performance or a specialized type of performance that would be beneficial to some people.

What you are saying is that spending big money on audiophile playback (or waterpicks) is not important to *you*, that YoYo Ma through your Yamaha CD changer is good enough for *you*. Everyone has different values. What is good enough for you may not be good enough for someone else, because they value certain things more than you do. And you certainly must value other things more importantly than they do.

While some audiophiles do get crazed about the technical stuff about the playback systems, I do think that for many of them the music is paramount. They want to hear into the sound in great detail and realism. Certainly, that playback system I described in my earlier post was *astounding*. What you could hear was remarkable, and it certainly enhanced the music.

So when it comes to this audiophile stuff you have to, to a great extent, throw the money part of the equation out the window. You need to evaluate the gear on its merits exclusively, irregardless of what it costs. It's all about the performance of the gear. And this is where this thread is a bit off base, since no one has actually heard the unit in question. And how it sounds is what it is all about with audiophile gear.