General Headphone Audio

Those details have been mentioned though in previous reviews, like what is R2R and why it differs to Delta Sigma etc.

With poor quality files certain imperfections are amplified in certain modes or on certain devices, just like how years ago we all found out that resolving headphones would show up badly encoded music files ("these headphones are unforgiving..." etc) and why LAME encoded mp3 files using an --alt preset even at 192 sounded better than general mp3 files at 320 and were typically close enough to FLAC at the time to actually be a nice way to save storage space without sacrificing much sound quality, we talked about it on these forums and SomethingAwful back in those days in great detail. So yes I am saying exactly that, that the mastering is important, and probably almost certainly more than anything else, edit* and that too is something I've mentioned a few times in recent reviews also. There's no need to repeat these things in every single review anyway as I reference and link back to past reviews in each new review, so ground has been safely covered either way.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
Those details have been mentioned though in previous reviews, like what is R2R and why it differs to Delta Sigma etc.

With poor quality files certain imperfections are amplified in certain modes or on certain devices, just like how years ago we all found out that resolving headphones would show up badly encoded music files ("these headphones are unforgiving..." etc) and why LAME encoded mp3 files using an --alt preset even at 192 sounded better than general mp3 files at 320 and were typically close enough to FLAC at the time to actually be a nice way to save storage space without sacrificing much sound quality, we talked about it on these forums and SomethingAwful back in those days in great detail. So yes I am saying exactly that, that the mastering is important, and probably almost certainly more than anything else, edit* and that too is something I've mentioned a few times in recent reviews also. There's no need to repeat these things in every single review anyway as I reference and link back to past reviews in each new review, so ground has been safely covered either way.
Click to expand...
"Those details have been mentioned, though in previous reviews, like what is R2R and why it differs to Delta Sigma etc."

Does that matter? You are writing a review of the product as well, you cant just praise it and talk about the benefits of its sound signature that you like while comparing it to a 1k DAC saying it sounds very close but then not mention the audible downsides and hand wave it away and blame it on "poor quality files" or say that people should be aware as that's been discussed in other reviews when its questioned...The very least should be to mention it, and if you want, to state that it may be more obvious on certain tracks etc as you observed, but not just ignore it completely.
Yes mastering is very important but that doesn't matter in this specific scenario. Even if it may potentially be more obvious on that specific track due to mastering issues or something else, the fact remains it sounds much cleaner on one dac than another, that's still an issue introduced by the dac itself not the track. So again at the very least it should be discussed like we are now and not ignored.
Also just to point out, its not anything like more resolving headphones showing up lack of detail in poor quality files. It's the exact opposite, its a poorly resolving dac showing issues not heard in a more resolving dac.
 
Last edited:
All the DACs being talked about here are nowhere near poor, they are all excellent and differ in nuances like what kind of soundstage or layering of the stereo image they have, as said before there is no right or wrong and some will prefer one over the other, that much has always been made clear. It's a fair take to blame poor quality files as the amp/DAC regardless of the models being talked about are all excellent in their own right, if the source file is badly mastered then of course a certain signature from an amp/DAC will highlight those flaws in the file depending on the settings configuration of the DAC in that moment. It's no surprise either that when using a clean mastered track that these noise/artifact issues are inaudible leaving only any differences actual musicality to be heard or not heard depending on the DAC/amp being used (one being harsh up to vs another being detailed and sparkly but not harsh and so not fatiguing etc).

My comparison of the file formats of old against certain headphones is still valid as it's not a far apart comparison from back then to what we are discussing today for a more modern take with DAC/amps and staging etc and now that presents the flaws in certain music.

That Green Day song sounds crap on R2R NOS/OS as well as on the X9 even with full NOS and Bypass enabled, yet all of them sound great with other tracks that have no obvious in the mastering.
 
mrk said:
All the DACs being talked about here are nowhere near poor, they are all excellent and differ in nuances like what kind of soundstage or layering of the stereo image they have, as said before there is no right or wrong and some will prefer one over the other, that much has always been made clear. It's a fair take to blame poor quality files as the amp/DAC regardless of the models being talked about are all excellent in their own right, if the source file is badly mastered then of course a certain signature from an amp/DAC will highlight those flaws in the file depending on the settings configuration of the DAC in that moment. It's no surprise either that when using a clean mastered track that these noise/artifact issues are inaudible leaving only any differences actual musicality to be heard or not heard depending on the DAC/amp being used (one being harsh up to vs another being detailed and sparkly but not harsh and so not fatiguing etc).

My comparison of the file formats of old against certain headphones is still valid as it's not a far apart comparison from back then to what we are discussing today for a more modern take with DAC/amps and staging etc and now that presents the flaws in certain music.

That Green Day song sounds crap on R2R NOS/OS as well as on the X9 even with full NOS and Bypass enabled, yet all of them sound great with other tracks that have no obvious in the mastering.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's just a bad faith take on it in my opinion that deflects from the issues with the R2R dacs purely because you like them, you seem to be ignoring the questions around how you didn't notice this obvious flaw or discuss it in your reviews which would provide a balanced representation and instead are focusing on the specific Green Day track that you say is poor quality(the original release may be crushed but the re-releases were much better), ignoring that it's not only that track that it can be heard on, it was just the example I used from memory.

"All the DACs being talked about here are nowhere near poor, they are all excellent"
Except they aren't, the R2R dacs measure terribly compared to sigma delta whether you like to admit that or not. It is a scientific fact, and it is observable in listening.

"they are all excellent and differ in nuances like what kind of soundstage or layering of the stereo image they have"
Which takes me back to how can I the reader of your reviews trust your observations on these things when you fail to mention or discuss the much more obvious and measurable flaws in a product.

"there is no right or wrong and some will prefer one over the other,"
Thats true some may prefer one over the other, that's not what is up for debate and I've already said multiple times that preferring that sound is understandable.

"It's a fair take to blame poor quality files as the amp/DAC regardless of the models being talked about are all excellent in their own right, if the source file is badly mastered then of course a certain signature from an amp/DAC will highlight those flaws in the file depending on the settings configuration of the DAC in that moment"
Again, you are just deflecting. If you are directly comparing multiple dacs using a single track then it cannot be an issue with the track if you hear differences between the dacs. If the track is **** but all the dacs perform the same, then it will still sound exactly the same on all dacs. The fact that it sounds noticeably worse on the R2R DAC, especially in NOS mode, can only be down to the DAC. I'm not sure how you are missing this fact.


None of this would bother me if it were just a random person's forum post, I would probably still try to have a discussion around it if it doesnt match my experience or understanding but its the fact that you receive products and write reviews for them (which I assume you are paid for aswell) that many people may base their purchasing decisions upon and then refuse to acknowledge any other points of view and deflect and dismiss valid criticism like we are seeing here.
 
Last edited:
Angst said:
you seem to be ignoring the questions around how you didn't notice this obvious flaw or discuss it in your reviews which would provide a balanced representation and instead are focusing on the specific Green Day track that you say is poor quality, ignoring that it's not only that track that it can be heard on, it was just the example I used from memory.
Click to expand...
Probably because I already answered the question. I did not hear the flaw you are describing, or if I did then it did not register as a flaw, to me OS mode sounds slightly elevated in the upper range, that's it, and only on some types of music. Otherwise to me they sound similar whether OS or NOS. That is my experience. Some may disagree, but I will only share my experience all the same.

I used the Green Day song as you specifically picked the song out and I had an expectation of a well produced song since you selected it and I was intrigued to listen to it as Green Day were never on my radar and that song I have only heard on radio stations etc, so was surprised when it wasn't what I was expecting which made it clear why the song was picked as the flaws were immediately obvious in the first few moments of the song starting. If you added a few more songs then I'd given them a go the exact same way.

Edit* this is not going anywhere so we can just agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
That sucks, of all things to fail, the cable?

Could you return where you got it from and get another?

But replacements, Tripowin or openheart are both good.
Click to expand...
I think I'll look for a new and preferably longer cable, as I am very pleased with the sound quality that the cans provide.
I will check out openheart/Tripowin cables on the web; IIRC, I think I'm looking for those with a 3.5mm jack. :)
 
Audeze has a new generation of cans coming out in November, this should be interesting. Requested a pair of Maxwell but they hinted at waiting a little bit as new stuff in a couple of months.
 
Yes Maxwell 2 was exposed briefly on their website which got everyone excited. Hopefully they will be MUCH lighter.
 
Last edited:
They were amazing VFM at £510 when I bought them, still were at the inflated £550 a year later, so at £417 that's an even bigger deal, add on top £16 for the Voarmaks pads and it's really hard to find any other headphones that can come close for sound and comfort combined really.
 
XV reviews well, but one thing is consistent:

"The Edition XV’s soundstage is competent but not especially expansive. It doesn’t have quite the same sense of width or openness that some of the egg-shaped Hifiman models are known for."
Click to expand...
Those who value soundstage/image may wish to stay on the older eggs.

Headband on Arya and up is superior as well.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
That cable is too thick to wrap around an ipod, but it also won't tangle.

For that you need a thinner cable and most of them do tangle unfortunately. The stock one for something like the Hexa would be fine for this use case, or the Kiwi Cadenza or Wan'er 2.
Click to expand...
Thanks Ive ordered the Cadenza.
 
mrk said:
XV reviews well, but one thing is consistent:


Those who value soundstage/image may wish to stay on the older eggs.

Headband on Arya and up is superior as well.
Click to expand...

That's fair, there's always a tradeoff. The hd6x0 range have great mids and timbre but sacrifices soundstage and clarity, the arya etc have a very large soundstage and lots of treble that make them sound very detailed but less natural and then the xv seems to try to hit closer to a midpoint between them.
 
Last edited:
It's clear they have tried to target a missing audience group that previous models never reached, like XV is more aligned with HD600 series now with the mids range which some like. Now there is an option for everyone it seems as opposed to just those who like width and sparkle etc.
 
Angst said:
and clarity
Click to expand...

Though they don't have the clinical "hi-res" clarity of say the Sony MDR range and there is the Sennheiser treble veil, I don't think the HD600s really sacrifice clarity - if you are driving them with the right amp and listening to something which is well mastered like a real recording of an orchestra with high end production then all the clarity is there you could wish for.

They might not be the best tuning match up with the quality of some modern music which might have an impact on perceived clarity due to other headphones hiding the ugliness more but IMO that isn't a fault of the headphones so to speak.

EDIT: Not to say there aren't headphones better for clarity - the HD800 are in a different league. I've never been able to nail down the technical reason behind it but I find any amp that uses less than a +/-9V supply tends to result in the HD600 series having a slight or worse muddiness and really they work best with amps which use +/-10.5V - I'm not sure why as if it was a voltage x gain product problem you'd simply run into clipping which would be noticeable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom