TheSloth

There isn't much circuitry he could possibly cut out of the Hornet, as there is hardly anything there in the first place, so we can assume this is just a repackaged Hornet, AD8397 etc. and a few cheaper components and much lower voltage? So, in other words this thing is like a Total Airhead except it has no crossfeed and runs at a much lower voltage off batteries, and will cost more? Way to go Ray! And those cases look very cute in pictures, but I really don't see how practical they are in their intended portable use with edges sticking out and protruding volume controls to get knocked about...

Hands down winner, the Simpl A1 iPod Amp!

I actually changed my pronunciation of that word for that very reason. I'm now a piAnist.

So glad you're enjoying them, not so glad they are destroying your wallet with ancillary equipment! My best audio buy of all time was a new pair of QUAD ESL988's. They were ?2500 ($4.7k) at the time. Why a new pair of speakers at almost retail price? Because these, or perhaps their bigger brothers or newer siblings are still my cost-no-object speakers. $4.7k is a lot of money, but when you have just bought the very best speaker that money can buy for your use and ears, I think you've done pretty darn well! I've heard speakers costing well into silly money territory. I even heard a Nautilus (the real snail) once. Given unlimited money (and space to put them), I'd still go out without hesitation and buy a brand new pair, probably of ESL2905's. The rest, I'd spend on associated equipment.

Correct, assuming you mean that more and more music signal is being pushed into the noise floor as you decrease the bit rate.

That's exactly how Wadia have always done it, but they give the volume level at which you will be going below 16bit, so at least you know what you're getting without having to measure it.

The 650 is indeed to my ears the most tinnitus-friendly headphone that still maintains some grip on 'reality'. The 701's problem is in the upper midrange, where it has a few extra dB, possible more beacuse of the cable. I seem to remember it was around 7 or 8k. The 650's will indeed improve greatly with a balanced system, without becoming less tinnitus-friendly. I've had the exact same dilemma that you have, and have gone through countless headphones and keep returning to the 650 for safety and lack of fatigue. I also try to listen to speakers more often, which is inherently also less dangerous. EQ'ing the 701 with your amp isn't likely to work because it only has quite a narrow peak, so you might take care of that but you will be throwing away the frequencies that are at a neutral level. The 701 is actually severely rolled off in parts of the treble region above 10k, so the last thing you would want to do is reduce everything up there by 2dB. Going with a phone that is voiced just a bit lower than the 701 to me seems to be the smart choice.

Is that a good thing?

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?ProductSKU=MDRD777LP&DCMP=Redirect_ss_MDRRD777LP Looks scarily similar to triports in some ways... But it is a new contender in the closed headphone market, and seems to have something PTH like built in. Ultrasone also have announced their Edition 9, which seems to be a repackaged Edition 7.

That the ebay member signed his correspondence Fred without he or myself having made any reference to Fred or Tuberoller previously, and before he actually posted here, and through my ebay username which is not TheSloth? It is not unequivocal proof of identity, but for our purposes it seems reasonable enough...

He signed his correspondence 'Fred'...

It's not Fred because he would know what I was talking about re: his listing on Ebay. We have exchanged at least 3 messages regarding some errors (I was actually helping him out).

All you have to do is tell me about the ebay correspondence. If you can't do that, you aren't Tuberoller. You sent me another e-mail today...

That's interesting because we have exchanged two messages through ebay regarding some, ahem, errors in your listing...

If you can tell me what I wrote to you on ebay regarding your sale of the HR Max, I'll vouch for you...

I wish I knew how to interpret waterfall plots with ease. Any tips?

That's pretty close indeed. But I'd still call that +1/-.05 vs. +/-0.5 for the M-Audio. I find it technically interesting that it doesn't seem to be that difficult to build a speaker that, save for bass extension, measures basically ruler flat. It seems that the 'hi-fi' companies are going for those other intangibles that I mentioned earlier, at the expense of a bit of that flatness, or are sometimes purposely avoiding that flatness for a particular 'sound'. Anyway, I'd love to hear these speakers just out of curiosity as to how the graph translates in real listening conditions.

Well that's always the question isn't it, but as all graphs of that type are taken in anechoic chambers, I see no particular reason to expect that this speaker would fare worse than any other in general.

Don't really agree with that, but then it can be somewhat music dependant. We are quite tolerant to FR aberrations, but even +/-3dB measurements are half or double the energy. Depends what you are listening for, but in the end if one assumes that the distortion is low enough to be inaudible, the delicate harmonic balance of any 'real life' instrument can be destroyed by one 3dB peak somewhere. As someone who works with such instruments daily, I've heard very, very few transducers at any price point that don't mess it up somewhere, and though there are other ways to mess up the reproduction of a sound wave, in my experience the problems have been at least partially found in the frequency domain. Of course, that has nothing to do with any of the 'audiophile' terms such as soundstage, dynamics, pace, and whatever else you want to throw at it, and I agree that these are other factors in good reproduction, but for my ears (tuned rather specifically I must admit) no other quality of reproduction can make up for a flawed harmonic series. Flat response doesn't guarantee great performance, but to my ears it is a prerequisite. And back to the original posting purpose, though I've seen 'relatively' flat response measurements, I've never seen anything like that with a +/-0.5dB deviation within most of the audible band. To my ears, 2 or 3dB is a big deal.

Was aimlessly poking around and came across these powered monitors: http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/MAudioEXSeriesEX66ReferenceMonitors-focus.html. Assuming it is accurate (why shouldn't it be from a reputable company with real testing facilities?), this is one of the best FR graphs I've ever seen from a speaker: +/- 0.5dB from 50hz to 19k?! I know FR isn't everything in a speaker, but when listening all too often am I hearing things out of place from the transducers I've owned, with respect to certain frequencies.

The Axiom bookshelves are supposed to be very good, and around your price range. http://www.axiomaudio.com/bookshelfspeakers.html?1364

Interconnects, yes, but that's a difference case with active components. I read Dusty's reply but I'm still not seeing what the potential impact is at such low impedances.

Is there anything to suggest that this can actually happen in a passive component?

Why would you shield a headphone/speaker cable?

Diabetes has been linked to obesity in multiple studies, but as always, the data has been interpreted to serve various interests. Obesity itself has no relevance in diabetes - that is to say that being overweight in itself is not a trigger. Getting overweight through a high sugar, carbohydrate and alcohol diet is a relevant trigger for late onset diabetes. The intake of such a diet of course does not guarantee that one will become overweight or obese, however in more cases than not the two are obviously linked. This is especially relevant in immigrant Indian/Bangladeshi groups - they have an incidence of late onset Diabetes which is far greater than any other group (in the UK) due to the change in diet, including a vast increase in the intake of sugar and alcohol which was not part of their native diet. Of course, there are a plethora of other psychophysical conditions that stem from obesity itself, rather than the diet that gets you there, particularly with relation to serious damage to the back, hip and knees (fortunately we can make new hips and knees, but we haven't got that far on the replacement back yet...). The level of bone breakages incurred after falls is statistically greater for those who are obese versus those who are not - with the simple reasoning that as one's weight increases, bone strength and mass does not increase accordingly therefore forcing the extra load to be carred by the same structure. I suppose reading those BMJ's (British Medical Journal) that were always lying around (doctor parents) comes in handy sometimes .