is this not absurd?

[RAK]

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.

Excellent points!

 

[masteringhouse]

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.

B, I realize that you're busy I am as well. But just dismissing the discussion/debate isn't going to us closer to the truth of the matter. This discussion is about more than this particular company and headphone amp. It's just an example of a bigger issue.

You said that your headphone amps fill your need nicely but these might be better. Better how? If your needs are met isn't that what we are all looking for? Are 3 great meals better than one? Isn't there a point where things start to become superfluous?

As we discussed before (and you set me straight) is recording to 24 bits better than 20 bits? Or is it marketing BS?

[edit]

Spoke to Brad offline about this. Final conclusion (I think) was that I'm a bigot in regard to headphone use and need to seek help in this area. I found the following particularly educational Headphones as Reference and will continue with a 12 step program. My apologies if anyone took my posts as a negatives against the company or it's product. They were directed more at extravagance and using that as a marketing ploy (snob appeal) which was the impression I was getting from their ad copy. I'm sure that the product is fantastic and recommend that everyone give it a listen.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

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.

That's exactly the point, Al.

And frankly I don't see how my bias - and yes I admit I do have a bias; it's called an opinion - is any more ludicrous than the bias of someone who says that my Yamaha and Mackie listening combo isn't good enough for *them*. What's the difference? They believe that I'm wrong and I believe that they're wrong . The fact is that they are both biases, they are both different points of view, and they are both based upon a set of internal values.

My value set is one where if I start becoming attracted to the idea of paying thousands of dollars for something so far down the list of life's priorities as a headphone amp, that red flags start popping up in my mind advising me that I'd better think about just how addicted to my hobby I'm actually getting. In my mind it's not about whether the buyer can afford it or not, or even if it's a headphone amplifier of God's own creation, it's about just how deep their addiction to such *things* is getting, and as to whether that just might be affecting their judgement.

Tied to that is the *fact* that even reputable companies know how to take advantage of such borderline obsession by offering products that, while they may (or may not) be superior, are not by any objective form of measurement such as performance specification or price, *as* superior as the price and the marketing pablum may suggest.

I honestly disagree with Brad on that point; there more often than not IS a law of diminishing return on just about anything having to do with techology price/performance (digital computing capacity and circuit density being obvious exceptions to this, of course). The disparity between price and performance as quality increases happens in at least two ways:

- Refinement of technology (note I'm not talking about breakthrough invention here, I'm talking abot making an existing product perform better) tends to have the characteristic where as more and more refinement is thrown into the design, the resulting improvements come in smaller an smaller increments. In just about any mature technology (and come on, amplifiers are a very mature technology) there comes a point where (just to use sample numbers for illustration) a doubling in refinement cost yields only a 10% increase in performance. The likely difference in measurable performance - especially in such a mature technology as audio amplification - between a $1000 headphone amp and a $2000 headphone amp is going to be on the order of just a few percent, and almost certainly nowhere near double the performance. As nice as that Bentley may be, it certainly does not have at $250K ten times the performance or engineering of a $25K Grand Prix GT or even five times the engineering and performance of a $50K BMW 5 series. Anybody who has enough self-earned discretionary money to be able to truely afford $2K for something like a seperate amplifier for their headphones has the economic saavy to understand that the return on that investment is - at the very least - not proportional, and can only be justified by the amount of desire they have for it. At that point they should be asking themselves if that amount of desire is rational or even healthy.

- The more top shelf a product is in any given line of products, the smaller the market for it. Let's face it; even Brad will agree that the percentage of population that can be considered even in the market for any outboar headphone amplifier whatsoever, let a lone a Bentley-class one, is miniscule. For this reason, the manufacturers have to put higher profit margins on their products in order to make money on those products; they don't have the economy of scale working for them. If headphone amplifiers were as ubiquitous as television sets, the retail price on that $2K headphone amp would sink faster than a stale matzoh ball. It costs $2K because they have to inflate the price enough to make it profitable enough to manuafcture at a low volume. One doesn't have to hear how it sounds to understand that. Again, as before, anybody with the financial saavy to afford it will understand that, and should ask themselves if it's worth paying that understandbly inflated price just to have "the best", and if it is, maybe wonder why it's so damn important for them to have "the best" to begin with.

And finally, for Al and for Brad especially, I sincerely hope you understand that I am coming at this thread with the understanding that it's a debate, not an argument. We obviously have differing opinions on this, as we are both entitled. The fact that I disagree with you on this point in no way diminishes my respect for you and in no way is intended as any kind of personal attack. We's just talkin' is all!

G.

 

[SonicAlbert]

But nobodies wrong in your scenario, Southside. Your system is indeed not good enough for some people, and it certainly isn't as good as a top notch playback system. That doesn't make them wrong for correctly stating that it's not good enough for them.

Likewise, you are saying that your system is *good enough* for you. That doesn't make you wrong for saying it suits you and you can hear what you want and need to from it. Nobody is wrong, people are just stating their preference.

That said, I've heard top notch audiophile playback systems, and your Yamaha/Mackie is not as good. Period. As far as pure audio performance, forget it--end of story.

That said, I listen to music on my Mackies in my studio, or a pair of little Roland DS-30 monitors in the livingroom. Or on the standard Apple earbuds that come with the iPod. That's good enough for me.

As far as diminishing returns, you do have to pay a premium to get that final extra bit of performance. Sometimes a big premium. But for some people and in some situations, nothing else will do. You definitely want that quality of gear to be available, whatever the price. There are some some situations where the concept of "good enough" does not exist. I feel that way about some things, so I understand the concept.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

You are absolutely right on all counts Al.

G.

 

[SonicAlbert]

I hate it when you give up that easily.

If you do a google search you'll see that the headphone amp being discussed in this thread has gotten some rave reviews (by people that have heard it). There's an interesting review here, that compares it to the Grace M902:

http://www.stereophile.com/headphones/406head/

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I hate it when you give up that easily.

hahaha, I haven't given anything up. You are absolutely correct. The fact that you or anyone else thought that I ever believed otherwise in any of my threads simply means that I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself, because I am being completly misunderstood. If that's the case, it serves nobody for me to continue.

I can only say what I said at the beginning...

IT'S A HEADPHONE AMP.

Anybody with a differing opinion on the relevance of that statement will never understand my point and I will never understand theirs. And from my point of view, a debate about such a trivial piece of the human condition that has gone on three pages has already given the topic far more resources than it deserves.

ITS A HEADPHONE AMP.

If one is willing to devote that much concern over a HEADPHONE AMP, I'm not going to bother to try and sermonize them any longer; it's frankly not my place to do so. Just one more thing, though...

IT'S A HEADPHONE AMP.



G.

 

[Beck]

I remember when the audiophile wasn’t a dirty word. I still use it in the classic sense, and prefer the term audiophool for this kind of nonsense.

It’s too bad, because there are people that can hear better than average (Golden ears), just like there are people that can see better, jump higher, run faster, etc.

I hate to see those that have extraordinary musical and sonic sensitivities grouped with the audiophool cult. Audiophools do have extraordinary imaginations though.

 

[masteringhouse]

An interesting discussion on headphones versus speakers:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1112845325&openflup&3&4#3

A friend of mine creates high-end home cinema rooms and mentioned to me once that he's always amazed at how some of his clients spare no expense in the gear that they buy, but are realtively cheap when it comes to rooms treatments. I have to wonder how much of this is related to having the best toys over having the best sound.

While headphones have a definite advantage over speakers in areas like recording vocals in a studio, QC in mastering, etc. these aren't really audiophile applications IMHO.

Rather than creating a high-end system that discount the room entirely, would it make more sense for an audiophile to spend this money on good room treatments?

Discuss ...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I have to wonder how much of this is related to having the best toys over having the best sound.

While headphones have a definite advatage over speakers in areas like recording vocals in a studio, QC in mastering, etc. these aren't really audiophile applications IMHO.

I believe you have hit upon the heart of the issue here, Tom.

Technological products of any level (from screwdrivers to space shuttles) ultimately fall into one of two categories: tools and toys. Many things can of course be used either way, but it's use at the time determines its fuction. For any given task it's either a tool or a toy.

Audio engineers use their gear as tools. Or at least they should. Those that are in this racket because they want to play with or collect the toys is never going to be a very good engineer.

Audiophiles use their gear as toys. Whether it's for the goal of getting the ultimate system or for the ultimate sound, or both, it's strictly for entertainment value.

The question is, at what point of excess does a toy for discretionary entertainment become a drug for synthesizing hapiness? There probably is no definitive "line", any more than there is no specific line that defines alcoholism.

All my point has been all along is that it is a defensible position that when a buyer sees a need for something like a couple of thousand of dollar cans amp for use as a toy, associated with the belief that it gives so much more of a high than, say, an amp half it's price, combined with the indifference by the buyer as to whether the seller is or is not taking advantage of their need, all very possibly indicates a borderline addictive behavior.

IT'S A HEADPHONE AMPLIFIER.

G.

 

[SonicAlbert]

So it's only a headphone amp, but I'm really interested to hear what it sounds like with a pair of incredible headphones.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So it's only a headphone amp, but I'm really interested to hear what it sounds like with a pair of incredible headphones.

I'd be interested to hear what it sounds like too. I have absolutely no interest in owning one. Two different animals.

G.