What do we think of this video and its claim about this source gear all sounding the same?
2 Likes
Don’t have 17 minutes to waste, but would love to hear what other (including you) have to say!
I had some time to kill before I went into a brief early meeting, so I watched.
Personally, I think he is wrong. I replaced my MX-3 with the SU-8 as my DAC for a reason. And it is simply this - I upgraded to the SU-8 DAC over the MX-3 because - it sounded better. Much more detail, richness and presence to the music. I then upgraded to the Bifrost 2. Why? Because the Frost sounds better. It brings out a more natural, organic tonality to the music that the SU-8 lacked. I can certainly hear sonic differences in my amps. And I could certainly hear a difference after I started preamping. So on that level, I think he is wrong.
Having said that, the “diminishing returns” factor definitely starts to kick in when you go to and through this price range. Is that Holo May DAC going to sound 4,000 dollars better than the Bifrost? Not a chance in Hell. So I don’t waste my time trying to play in that space. I’m not going to burn 4,000 bucks for a 4% improvement. At lest I’m not. In this regard, he is right.
I built to a sound quality and value proposition objective I could be comfortable with and enjoy for years. And I feel I have achieved that. No more chasing that dragon! But gear does sound different. So yeah, I think he is wrong. To a point.
2 Likes
I don’t think about it because the reviewer clearly didn’t put much thought into it if that’s his take. He’s wrong. A simple A/B test proves that.
Isn’t A/B testing what he’s doing with those sample recordings?
1 Like
Point taken. Then his ears aren’t very good. My ears are ravaged with tinnitus, and simple A/B testing with the same headphone proved the difference between a bright ESS Sabre chip and a warm Burr-Brown chip when I was testing a bunch of DACs a year ago.
There’s a certain segment of audiophiles who rely more on graphs and measurements than their ears. Few things irritate me more in this hobby than someone posting what pleasure they get from a new piece of gear and someone almost immediately pissing into their happy punch bowl by replying, “Yeah, but it doesn’t measure well.”
Who the f*ck cares? If the person who bought it likes it, so be it.
Take the iFi DAC-amps, for example. Yes, the hip-dac measured higher distortion than some other portable DAC-amps at Audio Science Review. But I still found it to sound better without EQ than the Qudelix, a few FIIO products, the Tempotec Sonata HD Pro and another dongle that all measured better because my ears liked the warmth of the Burr-Brown chip.
Take the Meze 99 series headphones as another example. Yes, they’re bassy and bloated as hell. But if someone likes that sound or wants it, who are we to criticize their choice? We can accurately point out that other headphones are more neutral, but what if the buyer wants flabby bass?
Too often the paradigm of this hobby is for people to apply their desired sound signature and features to everyone and question anyone who disagrees with their doctrine.
There is some objectivity in audiophilia. But there’s also a crapton of subjectivity, something that many (not you, Eric) forget.
Rant over! 
2 Likes
Haven’t watched it yet, but he’s wrong. I heard an immediate difference going from the Modius to the Bifrost 2, can prettily easily discern the difference between the SE and balanced outs on my Jot2, and comparing my BF2/Jot2 to my FiiO Q3? I know what I’m missing when I’m listening on the go.
4 Likes
I thought some differences came through in the demos.
I think it is natural that source gear variations are going to be smaller/diminishing and will cause some folks not to care. It becomes a matter of how do you listen, how much do you care, how much would you like to spend? All the same, I was surprised that the assessment was “zero variation”.
Asked for the answer guide to the blind testing portion.
Curious about the synergies/preferences I had to see what they mean for me.
2 Likes
Another growing question I have about this hobby: Does anyone spend more time listening to music than poring through graphs, frequency curves and headphone forums as if they were the IRS doing a forensic deep dive into tax returns of noted organized crime figures?
Sometimes I really wonder.
3 Likes
Man, had this exact though a couple of days ago.
If you think about other hobbies, people just enjoy whatever it is that they are enjoying. They usually aren’t on the internet discussing it.
Us audiophiles and tech junkies are always on our keyboards… if ya know what I mean
4 Likes
Appreciate the enthusiasm though, as it affords many things for the hobby.
I wish that wine had near the levels of user-level enthusiasm, youthful energy and content creation that this hobby has.
Both hobbies are this deeply subjective and obsessive-attracting things that of-course are riddled with troubles — but enthusiasm is the key thing.
2 Likes
No graphs for me, but I sometimes have to stop myself and go back to Listening
to music. (I can’t do both simultaneosly, lol.)
2 Likes
I tend to avoid graphs until I’ve had a hands on then I look at the graphs and go “oh that’s why it sounds a bit sharp” etc…
also graphs imo don’t tell the whole story people that looked at graphs and asked me for comparisons have been shocked by what I said lol
1 Like
Cannot agree. Every hobby I’ve delved into has multiple very enthusiastic geeks who spend more time on the web talking about the hobby than they do in the real world enjoying it. I’ve done very deep dives into; Martial arts (both armed and empty handed), benchrest shooting, long range marksmanship, gunsmithing, cars (specifically classic Americam muscle and resto/mods), compound archery (competitve), bladesmithing, material science (ferrous metallurgy), wet shaving (both safety razor and straight razor), antique straight razor restoration and trading, and am now neck deep in audiophelia.
All of those communities have large numbers of people doing exactly what we do here. Yes, even shaving. There’s actually a thriving enthusiast community for shaving, and I am guilty as charged!
Though, I must admit, I have some bangin’ kpop blasting my eardrums on my new headphones as I type this. This is the first hobby I’ve been involved in that I can enjoy WHILE I talks (or type) about it!
5 Likes
Have full understanding that all hobbies have communities, but when I imagine a hobbyist/enthusiast, I imagine them doing the hobby and not spending time on the web talking about it. Sure you might go on the web to ask a question or for an opinion, but in theory you should spend more time in the hobby.
Let’s say you love photography/cinematography, you “should” spend more time shooting and experimenting than talking on the web.
Cycling, you “should” spend more time riding your bike than talking about it.
If you imagine a “true” audiophile, you imagine a human who is spending time thoroughly enjoying music.
We are all different though. Some of us just enjoy interacting with others’ and sharing our enthusiasm online. Nothing wrong with that!
Like if you imagine a celebrity or a “rich” person with a hobby, you don’t imagine them spending time on the web.
2 Likes
I can’t agree more. When I upgraded from my Grace SDAC to a Bifrost 2 I immediately noticed more low end, detail, and instrument separation. I’m willing to concede that the change in sound isn’t “worth” $600 ($100 → $700) to some people, but there was definitely a difference.
I actually had a much more difficult time hearing the difference between balanced and SE outs on the Jotunheim 2; I can admit that.
1 Like
“Should” neing the operative word here 
I guess what I was implying was that I distinctly get the feeling that there are a lot of hobbies full of keyboard jockies who get enthusiastic but spend more time online than they do enjoying the activities they “should” be lol. To each their own. I’m not /bothered/ by it, but the universal humanity of it is sometimes amusing.
2 Likes
It is all interesting.
I myself am one of those who like to spend more time doing the hobby/activity that I am passionate about then talking about it online. However, I love education and gaining more knowledge, so I might hop on a forum and ask someone for a specific thing about the hobby — forums are very useful when you need help because there are knowledgeable people who are always willing to help you out.
2 Likes
It’s hard to know where to start with head-fi reviewers, but there’s one frequent front-pager in particular whose been bothering me.
Firstly, “corgifall” was the one who created this gem of a con in one their reviews: “Single DD timbre”. I’ll let that sink in. Gave me a laugh at the time. Didn’t stop stores/manufacturers from chucking expensive items at them.
Secondly, despite being sent very expensive items, and saying While I always appreciate stuff being sent in to test and review, It never affects the rating of my review. the LOWEST they have reviewed an item is 4/5. That’s the lowest, and they’re building up quite a stack of reviews. Everything they have been sent to review has magically garnered 4, 4.5, or 5 stars. That’s an even more biased and worthless average than another head-fier who most of us suspect to be a Penon shill (never lower than a 3/5 I think).
In other words their reviews are essentially useless, and exist to receive more stuff, and so Head-Fi can put it on the front page to the satisfaction of the company being shilled.
They’ve never given any evidence that they know what they’re talking about, just that they’ve enjoyed a lot of expensive gear.
3 Likes
Pff, I’ve seen some quite hilarious front page reviews. One in particular where a Head-Fier by the name of mochil posted a review of the Final Audio A8000 — a $2000 IEM — and it felt like what I was reading was either some fantasy or a drug trip.
I want to state that I have absolutely nothing against this individual! This one in particular helped me know who I will never be as a reviewer, and it only pushed me harder to develop my personal style. I think that the saddest part is that the company provided him the A8000 as a sample, and I personally think that the review just didn’t do it justice.
The best line from the review (describing treble):
She is fast and gentle at the same time just like air , clear and transparent while be natural and real and never hurt you one bit. She extends far and wide and deep and high . She touches you soft with light textures that can tickle your follicle.
From that moment on, I knew that a poet is not what I am trying to be as a reviewer…
2 Likes