Competition: Apple Lossless Vs. WAV - Which one is better?

[Cogman]

Not sure what the Apple-ness has to do with anything but...

I did this test myself, comparing CD to MP3 to AAC. I found with my hardware and my encoders/decoders, I couldn't consistently tell the difference between iTunes Fraunhofer MP3 true stereo (not joint stereo) at 224 Mbps, vs. CD. I didn't use AAC because not that much stuff supported it at the time. (See above.) However, just for a cushion, I encoded it at 256 Mbps, because it wasn't much bigger, and all my devices supported 256 Mbps MP3. Now AAC support is almost ubiquitous, so I use 192 Mbps AAC, as IMO the quality is the same as 224-256 Mbps iTunes MP3.

Pretty sure you mean kbps.. not Mbps. 192 Mbps would mean that a 3 minute song would take up roughly 4GB of space.

 

[Eug]

Hahah. Yeah. Too much video encoding on the mind these days I guess.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Take e.g. a core audio belief of burn-in. A relatively simple test involving two headphones and burning one in for say 100 hours - a time period where a host of audiophiles on Head-Fi, 6Moons and other BS-afflicted sites will report major improvements in the sound - then comparing both in a blind test will fairly conclusively put to bed whether burn-in is a factor.

Same with audio equipment and 'burn-in'.

No-one 'prominent' has published the results in 10 years of Head-Fi existence though. Best we've had is a carefully-worded article by Tyll Hertsens on his site muddying the waters further.

Burn-in is actually a believable physical phenomena, though. It's simply wear and tear (or "conditioning") of various components inside a driver.

The only reason why nobody has been able to conclusively show you any consistent data is because:

1) It's not possible to measure microscopic changes within a driver with the instruments we have now, so nobody knows for sure "how much" has changed within the drivers in those 100 hours. But you can ask pretty much any engineer, and they'll tell you that there should at least be "some" change.

2) With #1 in mind, the only way to really "measure" the change is by measuring what comes out of the headphones themselves. This can be done with head models, but again... due to limitations of measuring instruments, the most you can say is that with your particular setup, you can't really pick up any substantial change.

3) People hear differently due to their ear structure and so on. I don't believe you can say definitely that with the same pair of headphones, I would hear the same way you do. I can probably pick up the same information, but it'll probably vary slightly to drastically. In that case, I'd think "burn-in" would be more on a per-person basis rather than anything you can scientifically prove for the masses.

So that's why I believe there hasn't been any definitive proof that "burn-in" is real or not.

I can agree with confidence, though, that under normal listening conditions, I haven't actually picked up any difference in the sound signature of a pair of headphones, and my headphones are all those reported to have substantial changes after burn-in.

So personally, I would agree with you that "burn-in" as a mean to substantially change the sound of a pair of headphones does not exist, but I am also open to any report that tells otherwise, because I know from physical intuition that there must be some change.

As a lowly BS Computer Engineer, I agree, it isn't that complicated. I've seen TONS of things come from audiophiles and their ilk that have caused a little part of me to die.

"That HDMI cable has to be gold plated for a richer sound!"
"Vacuum tubes produce a much richer sound than their digital counterparts."
"Records are much better than any digital storage method"

999 times out of 1000 they are completely full of crap.

Depending on the situation, though. I don't think it's a full 999 times. There are some truths to it:

1) The HDMI cable... totally agree with you there. The fact is that it's transmitting digital data, not analog, so any signal loss is unsubstantial unless the receiver is totally crap.

2) Vacuum tubes have richer sound than digital counterparts (OpAmps). Generally... pretty true, actually. Fundamentally, tubes and opamps do things differently. Or in fact, different opamps do things differently. It also depends on the circuits as well. What I can definitely agree with, is that in general, it's not true that vacuum tubes would produce better sound than opamps. But that's really something up for debate because it's purely subjective. And there's also the fact that in general, vacuum tube amps are better received (and genuinely sound better) than digital amps due to design decisions and other factors... so it's really hard to tell.

3) This I can say... it depends on what the digital storage method is. Original 96KHz 24-bit PCM files would probably be on par or actually better than records. But if you compare MP3 320kbps to records, then... I think it highly depends on what song it is. You may disagree, but I think music stored in MP3 128kbps would be obviously and inherently inferior to records.

 

[Eug]

Hmmm... I just checked my iTunes prefs, since I've updated iTunes several times in the last several months, and somehow it's set at the iTunes Plus setting for importing. That's VBR AAC 256 AAC stereo. I don't remember putting it there, but I think I'll just leave it there.

So, from now on I'm encoding at 256 Kbps AAC instead of 192 Kbps AAC, just because.

 

[vbuggy]

Burn-in is actually a believable physical phenomena, though. It's simply wear and tear (or "conditioning") of various components inside a driver.

Oh yeah sure, absolutely. If you e.g. take a 10-year-old pair of headphones in the house of a smoker who's used it every day to take an extreme example - that's going to exhibit 'burn-out' for sure. Also many low-quality dynamic earphone drivers react adversely to moisture over a surprisingly short period - e.g. a matter of weeks when worn every day in humid conditions. There will be mechanical changes over time, even if you discount the probably far more relevant factors in long-term wear as as deposited skin oil / salts buildup, etc.

The key is however whether the differences over the period of around 100 hours of break-in - especially when unattended, since many claim it makes a major difference to leave music playing thru phones - makes a difference of a magnitude so as to be noticeable in isolation, i.e. without a control phone. You root around in Head-Fi, you'll see gazillions of anecdotal evidence of major changes in change around the hundred-hour mark.

One of the questions would be how are they establishing this change without reference to the original sound of the headphone? The inferred answer to that, if you read the posts, would be 'because my golden ears and perfect audio memory is infallible'. Whereas the genuine answer is that there is no real discernible difference. Yet the argument rages on.

On related matters I applaud nwavguy's attempt to objectivize things a little, but ultimately even he can't defeat people's egos.

 

[Eug]

There was interesting print article from many years ago comparing not "golden ears" but trained ears vs. untrained ones.

For the trained ears, they were relatively consistently hearing audible differences in MP3 encoding at moderately high bitrates whereas untrained ones (even ones in the industry - musicians, etc.) wouldn't hear them.

The trained people were specially trained to listen for specific types of encoder artifacts in specific types of music.

For me, I'd consider myself an untrained listener, but having listened to so any side-by-side MP3 and AAC comparisons over the years, I did find some tracks which became my "go to" tracks for compressed audio comparison.

The most obvious (to me) seemed to be those parts of songs with a high frequency and a lot of stereo separation and changes in the character of that stereo separation, as well as other types of things. However, the trained ears had learned about many more relatively common artifacts.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Oh yeah sure, absolutely. If you e.g. take a 10-year-old pair of headphones in the house of a smoker who's used it every day to take an extreme example - that's going to exhibit 'burn-out' for sure. Also many low-quality dynamic earphone drivers react adversely to moisture over a surprisingly short period - e.g. a matter of weeks when worn every day in humid conditions. There will be mechanical changes over time, even if you discount the probably far more relevant factors in long-term wear as as deposited skin oil / salts buildup, etc.

The key is however whether the differences over the period of around 100 hours of break-in - especially when unattended, since many claim it makes a major difference to leave music playing thru phones - makes a difference of a magnitude so as to be noticeable in isolation, i.e. without a control phone. You root around in Head-Fi, you'll see gazillions of anecdotal evidence of major changes in change around the hundred-hour mark.

One of the questions would be how are they establishing this change without reference to the original sound of the headphone? The inferred answer to that, if you read the posts, would be 'because my golden ears and perfect audio memory is infallible'. Whereas the genuine answer is that there is no real discernible difference. Yet the argument rages on.

On related matters I applaud nwavguy's attempt to objectivize things a little, but ultimately even he can't defeat people's egos.

Oh no, I agree. There is definitely a problem in how people measure the effects of burn-in currently. But since it's all subjective, there is no way you can tell them otherwise even with hard evidences.

And I do recall NwAvGuy being outed from Head-Fi for a different reason altogether. But his work is indeed phenomenon. I love his O2 amp a lot as a matter of fact. But many Head-Fi'ers still like to claim that their $500 - $1000 (heck, $2000) amps are "superior".

 

[Cogman]

Depending on the situation, though. I don't think it's a full 999 times. There are some truths to it:

1) The HDMI cable... totally agree with you there. The fact is that it's transmitting digital data, not analog, so any signal loss is unsubstantial unless the receiver is totally crap.

2) Vacuum tubes have richer sound than digital counterparts (OpAmps). Generally... pretty true, actually. Fundamentally, tubes and opamps do things differently. Or in fact, different opamps do things differently. It also depends on the circuits as well. What I can definitely agree with, is that in general, it's not true that vacuum tubes would produce better sound than opamps. But that's really something up for debate because it's purely subjective. And there's also the fact that in general, vacuum tube amps are better received (and genuinely sound better) than digital amps due to design decisions and other factors... so it's really hard to tell.

3) This I can say... it depends on what the digital storage method is. Original 96KHz 24-bit PCM files would probably be on par or actually better than records. But if you compare MP3 320kbps to records, then... I think it highly depends on what song it is. You may disagree, but I think music stored in MP3 128kbps would be obviously and inherently inferior to records.

2) I know what an opamp is (I've used several of them). There is no debate surrounding this. Get a sound system using an OpAmp, and then get one using a vacuum tube. Find a yuppy that claims Vacuum tubes are always better than OpAmps and then do ABX testing to see if he can reliably pick out the OpAmp from the Vacuum tube system.

There doesn't have to be a single subjective thing about sound systems. We can actually, scientifically, test these things to see if there are actual differences or placebos. Guess what we find when we do the testing? That's right, 999/1000 times the audiophile is full of crap.

3) Read what I said. There are people out there that say that records are ALWAYS better than something that spits out digitally recorded sounds. That doesn't mean that all digitally stored sounds are better than records. After all, 32 kbps MP3s sound like crap.

 

[vbuggy]

2) Vacuum tubes have richer sound than digital counterparts (OpAmps). Generally... pretty true, actually. Fundamentally, tubes and opamps do things differently. Or in fact, different opamps do things differently. It also depends on the circuits as well. What I can definitely agree with, is that in general, it's not true that vacuum tubes would produce better sound than opamps. But that's really something up for debate because it's purely subjective. And there's also the fact that in general, vacuum tube amps are better received (and genuinely sound better) than digital amps due to design decisions and other factors... so it's really hard to tell.

I have to call BS on that one. The good tube amps actually behave a lot like solid-state amps in terms of overall audio performance when they're up to speed. Uncoloured sound, low distortion.

The "bad" tube amps - or just ones which are engineered to be different - can exhibit significant coloration and (frankly undesirable from a quality point of view) distortion. Some people think this is better.

If we haven't touched on it already, visual perception and expectation are big subjective deviators in the audiophile arena. I've done listening experiments with wooden boxes and dummy tubes (as well as other curveballs) and what people see has a huge bearing in terms of how they perceive sound.

e.g. I've seen the Audio-Technica ATH-W1000 headphone described as 'warm' because of their expectations of the wooden shells - whereas in reality it's one of the more antiseptic and 'cold' (i.e. bass-shy, treble-cut-glass-prominent) phones I've heard/tested.

The same with tube amps - a lot of the really good ones, at least the ones who aren't hawking BS - actually measure like a good solid-state in terms of overall tonal response. Where there's 'pleasing' distortion over and above other solutions is when you send the amp a signal that's way too hot - but as an audiophile and not some axe-shredder, you probably will do this never.

But who are the manufacturers to counter "Well no, our amp just amplifies - it doesn't colour, that's the ******* point" when a subjectivist reviewer claims they're 'rich'?

 

[BD2003]

Oh yeah sure, absolutely. If you e.g. take a 10-year-old pair of headphones in the house of a smoker who's used it every day to take an extreme example - that's going to exhibit 'burn-out' for sure. Also many low-quality dynamic earphone drivers react adversely to moisture over a surprisingly short period - e.g. a matter of weeks when worn every day in humid conditions. There will be mechanical changes over time, even if you discount the probably far more relevant factors in long-term wear as as deposited skin oil / salts buildup, etc.

The key is however whether the differences over the period of around 100 hours of break-in - especially when unattended, since many claim it makes a major difference to leave music playing thru phones - makes a difference of a magnitude so as to be noticeable in isolation, i.e. without a control phone. You root around in Head-Fi, you'll see gazillions of anecdotal evidence of major changes in change around the hundred-hour mark.

One of the questions would be how are they establishing this change without reference to the original sound of the headphone? The inferred answer to that, if you read the posts, would be 'because my golden ears and perfect audio memory is infallible'. Whereas the genuine answer is that there is no real discernible difference. Yet the argument rages on.

On related matters I applaud nwavguy's attempt to objectivize things a little, but ultimately even he can't defeat people's egos.

Voodoo or not, the past two sets of headphones I've bought based on recommendations sounded pretty horrible OOB. I was really bummed, like I just wasted my money....just really unbalanced frequency response. Let it run unattended and by the end of day 2 I thought they sounded incredible. I dunno whether it subtly got any better past that point, or something magical happens at hour 100, but the difference between fresh and slightly used was night and day.

I'd def love to see something objectively measure this.

 

[Eug]

To me, often "warm" means "inaccurate".

 

[Cogman]

But who are the manufacturers to counter "Well no, our amp just amplifies - it doesn't colour, that's the ******* point" when a subjectivist reviewer claims they're 'rich'?

The reason these guys don't exist is because it would be very bad for business. When it comes to amplification, there is an expectation that "bigger is better" and that things MUST be expensive. The truth of the matter is that everything needed to do that amplification can be fit on a single, very tiny chip and done very cheaply.

I mean, come on, sound operates in the KILOhertz range. We have OpAmps that easily operate in the Gigahertz range without distortion.

If you really wanted to get fancy, you could have a 4 stage system. Input -> DSP -> amplification -> output

You could do all of your filtering in the DSP stage (and to a VERY high accuracy) and then do raw volume amplification with a single OpAmp. The whole setup would cost about $50 in parts.

I mean, it is like the audio industry wants us to just forget that we have gone through a digital revolution. It is like they seriously believe that the size of the components needed to make a sound system today must be the same size as the components needed in the 80's.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I have to call BS on that one. The good tube amps actually behave a lot like solid-state amps in terms of overall audio performance when they're up to speed. Uncoloured sound, low distortion.

The "bad" tube amps - or just ones which are engineered to be different - can exhibit significant coloration and (frankly undesirable from a quality point of view) distortion. Some people think this is better.

If we haven't touched on it already, visual perception and expectation are big subjective deviators in the audiophile arena. I've done listening experiments with wooden boxes and dummy tubes (as well as other curveballs) and what people see has a huge bearing in terms of how they perceive sound.

e.g. I've seen the Audio-Technica ATH-W1000 headphone described as 'warm' because of their expectations of the wooden shells - whereas in reality it's one of the more antiseptic and 'cold' (i.e. bass-shy, treble-cut-glass-prominent) phones I've heard/tested.

The same with tube amps - a lot of the really good ones, at least the ones who aren't hawking BS - actually measure like a good solid-state in terms of overall tonal response. Where there's 'pleasing' distortion over and above other solutions is when you send the amp a signal that's way too hot - but as an audiophile and not some axe-shredder, you probably will do this never.

But who are the manufacturers to counter "Well no, our amp just amplifies - it doesn't colour, that's the ******* point" when a subjectivist reviewer claims they're 'rich'?

Well, like I said, it's purely subjective, but generally, people do prefer coloration over accuracy.

The audiophile community may not admit it, but the fact is a large number of them are bassheads. And as far as bass goes, distortion and coloration is "considered" better. Hey, here's another fact: the mid-fi kings, Denon D2000, Beyerdynamic DT990, Sennheiser HD 650, HiFiMan HE-400, HiFiMan HE-500, Audeze LCD2,... are ALL basshead cans! The "flat and accurate" myth has died a long time ago, I think. There is no such thing as a universally "flat" headphones anymore because the more accepted general consensus now is that everyone listens and hears differently, so something that sounds flat to one person may be sibilant or ear-piercing to another. In fact, if you look at frequency response graphs of the same headphones but from many different sites, the graphs will look... well, different!

Here's just to demonstrate what I'm talking about. Take the Sennheiser HD 600, the "benchmark" for accuracy currently, as an example:

It almost looks as if you are looking at two different headphones altogether.

So with that in mind, I think... personally, that "accuracy" is a huge myth, and at some point, you should just get audio gears and listen the way you feel that's comfortable to "you", not what others consider "accurate". There's also the fact that audiophiles "enjoy" music, they don't try to "analyze" music by trying to make things as flat as possible. That privilege is more for studios and recording, me thinks.

From that angle, it's actually true tube amps do a MUCH better job at controlling coloration and distortion than solid state amps, or at least it's true for the less expensive models.

And by the way, even NvAwGuy's O2 is NOT flat despite his claims. It still has some slight coloration at the upper end of the frequency response, though it's not as bad as other amps.

Edit: and on a side note, even though I say most audiophiles are bassheads, I don't consider Beats by Dr. Dre good basshead choice. As ironic as it sounds, they lack... impact.

 

[vbuggy]

Voodoo or not, the past two sets of headphones I've bought based on recommendations sounded pretty horrible OOB. I was really bummed, like I just wasted my money....just really unbalanced frequency response. Let it run unattended and by the end of day 2 I thought they sounded incredible. I dunno whether it subtly got any better past that point, or something magical happens at hour 100, but the difference between fresh and slightly used was night and day.

I'd def love to see something objectively measure this.

We underestimate how unreliable and influenced by circumstances our sonic memory is. 'Burn-in' is usually far more mental adaptation to the sound based on your expectations than anything else. One of the reasons I have a whole host of speakers and headphones - the references chosen for very different characters - and dig them out to evaluate new stuff is to recalibrate my own expectations. And any switching of sources I do I sweat to reduce the gap to the absolute minimum while getting reliable switching for precisely the reason that my audio memory is fundamentally unreliable.

I've been considering providing equipment to someone more 'normally visible' in the community to run a fairly airtight test.

The key I've been mulling over is how to present the test so that it sits well with the community. As a certain consumer electronics company has proven beyond doubt, the intellectually poor but emotionally rich in particular often have spectacularly high degrees of egos which if you make allowances for in your presentation of a complex product or problem, they will rate your opinion or product as "better" and follow you anywhere. On the other hand being openly and unequivocally objective among a sea of subjectivists is, as you may imagine, pretty counterproductive - openly taunting the misinformed with facts, sadly, never wins over anyone who wasn't readily winnable-over in the first place. And I obviously don't want to commit the resources to do the test properly if the results just sink without trace.

 

[vbuggy]

From that angle, it's actually true tube amps do a MUCH better job at controlling coloration and distortion than solid state amps, or at least it's true for the less expensive models.

I have no idea how you arrived at this conclusion.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I have no idea how you arrived at this conclusion.

Well, bear in mind that I'm not saying that tubes are better than opamps. I'm saying that in a comparison with a whole tube amp (circuits + tube + power supply) vs a whole solid state amp (circuits + opamps + power supply) at the lower end of the spectrum (around $500 to lower), the tube amp generally comes out with better coloration and distortion control, but it obviously won't win any accuracy award.

I guess that's partially because no one bothers to make a good solid state amp with distortion and coloration control in mind.

If you disagree, please feel free to point out a solid state amp in the $500 and lower price range that adds warmth and bass impact (not sub-bass vibration, just impact) to the music without distorting it too much. Oh, and it also has to be able to drive 600 Ohm headphones.

 

[BD2003]

We underestimate how unreliable and influenced by circumstances our sonic memory is. 'Burn-in' is usually far more mental adaptation to the sound based on your expectations than anything else. One of the reasons I have a whole host of speakers and headphones - the references chosen for very different characters - and dig them out to evaluate new stuff is to recalibrate my own expectations. And any switching of sources I do I sweat to reduce the gap to the absolute minimum while getting reliable switching for precisely the reason that my audio memory is fundamentally unreliable.

I've been considering providing equipment to someone more 'normally visible' in the community to run a fairly airtight test.

The key I've been mulling over is how to present the test so that it sits well with the community. As a certain consumer electronics company has proven beyond doubt, the intellectually poor but emotionally rich in particular often have spectacularly high degrees of egos which if you make allowances for in your presentation of a complex product or problem, they will rate your opinion or product as "better" and follow you anywhere. On the other hand being openly and unequivocally objective among a sea of subjectivists is, as you may imagine, pretty counterproductive - openly taunting the misinformed with facts, sadly, never wins over anyone who wasn't readily winnable-over in the first place. And I obviously don't want to commit the resources to do the test properly if the results just sink without trace.

I'd agree with you entirely if not for the fact that I didn't listen to the headphones at all during the break in. Listened once, did not like. 50 hours unattended break in later, really did like.

Not to mention this is even on a pair of cans (ultrasone HFI-780) where the manufacturer themselves state that they'll sound better after 30 hours. I find it difficult to believe the manufacturer would recommend this unless this was something they tested.

 

[vbuggy]

I'd agree with you entirely if not for the fact that I didn't listen to the headphones at all during the break in. Listened once, did not like. 50 hours unattended break in later, really did like.

Not to mention this is even on a pair of cans (ultrasone HFI-780) where the manufacturer themselves state that they'll sound better after 30 hours. I find it difficult to believe the manufacturer would recommend this unless this was something they tested.

Unless the manufacturer does no manufacturing testing of the phones to start with (and with Ultrasone it may not be off the mark, who knows) a few tens of hours of normal music playback will add little, if anything, to the mechanical degredation (since that's effectively what it is) of the phone.

 

[BD2003]

Unless the manufacturer does no manufacturing testing of the phones to start with (and with Ultrasone it may not be off the mark, who knows) a few tens of hours of normal music playback will add little, if anything, to the mechanical degredation (since that's effectively what it is) of the phone.

I get what you're saying but....my ears tell me a different story.

Someone should really test this once and for all.

 

[vbuggy]

Well, bear in mind that I'm not saying that tubes are better than opamps. I'm saying that in a comparison with a whole tube amp (circuits + tube + power supply) vs a whole solid state amp (circuits + opamps + power supply) at the lower end of the spectrum (around $500 to lower), the tube amp generally comes out with better coloration and distortion control

??

If you disagree, please feel free to point out a solid state amp in the $500 and lower price range that adds warmth and bass impact (not sub-bass vibration, just impact) to the music without distorting it too much. Oh, and it also has to be able to drive 600 Ohm headphones.

How does $10 grab you?

It even has a full EQ built into the codec for 'warmth'.

And as for 'warmth', show me a tube amp of any price that's not quantifiably inferior to a solid-state which actually measurably adds 'warmth' to the sound. You'd certainly be surprised, I'm sure. Go buy a few more amps, buy some testing gear or a decent soundcard + e.g. Fuzzmeasure, come back.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Well, you are referring to how "flat" something is. And I'm not disagreeing that solid state amps are flat. In fact, if you go by measurements alone, then NwAvGuy's O2 would beat a lot of head amps all the way up to the $1000 price range in "flatness".

But measurements are not the be-all end-all factor in the audio world. It's not quantifiable how someone "enjoys" something.

Telling me to go test more is just avoiding the question. Again, can you show me a solid state head amp under $500 that can drive 600 Ohm headphones and with bass boost plus added warmth?

Edit: note that hybrid tube + solid state (like Little Dot MK series) obviously don't count.

Edit 2: also, about that USB thing, try plugging a 600 Ohm headphone in there. Not pleasant, is it?

 

[vbuggy]

But measurements are not the be-all end-all factor in the audio world. It's not quantifiable how someone "enjoys" something.

No, as I said that can occasionally come down to how many glowing tubes the user can see. It's not that that's bad, it's that all the talk about tube warmness and coloration can genuinely occasionally come down to whether the user can see tubes or not.

Telling me to go test more is just avoiding the question. Again, can you show me a solid state head amp under $500 that can drive 600 Ohm headphones and with bass boost plus added warmth?

No it's not. I answered the question. The codec will, I'm pretty confident, beat out whatever <$500 retail tube amp you can unearth. It is - or rather incorporates - a solid state head amp.

Edit 2: also, about that USB thing, try plugging a 600 Ohm headphone in there and "overdrive" it. Not pleasant, is it?

Why would I need to?

Edit 2.5: also, about that USB thing, try plugging a 600 Ohm headphone in there. Not pleasant, is it?

Why do you think I put a Tesla T1 in the picture?

 

[runawayprisoner]

Well, I think I'll just get straight to the point because it seems you don't know what I'm talking about, and we'll just keep going in circles. Here's why:

http://www.trueaudio.com/at_eetjlm.htm

Murphy cited published results of several carefully conducted double-blind listening tests confirming that even highly trained listeners cannot hear the difference between tube and solid-state amplifiers when the amps are operated in their linear range. "Only a handful of fanatics-but mostly those with blatant financial interests-persist in making claims to the contrary," he said.

Everything changes when you clip (overdrive) the amps, however. "Then it becomes easy to hear the difference between typical tube and solid-state amps. It is also easy to see the difference on an oscilloscope trace," he said.

A typical tube amp (such as a pair of triodes in series) can be seen to clip with a softly rounded waveform, while typical solid-state amps (such as op amps) clip with razor-sharp edges.

That's the reason why I said plug in the 600 Ohm headphones. But 600 Ohm is not even needed to clip most amps. Around 250 - 300 Ohm is about enough to do so, especially with bass boost or EQ. Once you clip the amps, then tube behaves much better than solid state. I might have used the word "control" in the wrong context here, but it's true that once the amp has to go into overdrive, then tubes would be better.

Of course, for general consumer and low-fi use, solid state wouldn't be any different from tube, but to claim that tubes are the same as opamps even for high-end audio is pretty weird. That's why I said it depended on the situation and also on the person (and gears).

Basically, I'm not disagreeing with you that solid state is better than tubes in some measurements, and I'd even admit that I enjoy solid state more than tubes, but it's generally the case that tubes are used in better amps for a reason.

 

[vbuggy]

You know, there is a time to give up instead of trying to argue from different sides in order to come out with 'a win'.

There is no need to overdrive an amp to get it to clip (with a digital source as the back-end? Really?) in normal or even halfway abnormal listening, unless you're going deaf - and I don't doubt this is actually the case for a lot of subjectivist audiophiles. (Many's the time when I've asked people who write reviews when they had their last hearing test done, I've been looked at like I was a fish on a bicycle)

And yes, the USB codec behaves perfectly OK with the T1's.

 

[Eug]

Yeah, if you're clipping your amps, ur doin it rong.