I was offered the opportunity by Archimago to share a few thoughts regarding the Dragonfly v1.2 which I graciously received as a pre-wedding gift from my good friend the Mago himself. However, before I go into that, I'd like to provide a little background on how I feel the entire subjective high end audio hobby has changed over the past two decades or so. This leads up to why I believe that the majority of consumer electronic products have mostly reached a technological performance plateau over the last few years and why I don’t think there are really any truly “bad” audiophile products out there any more in general.
First of all, I've followed the general evolution of the high end-audio scene off and on for the greater part of two decades and have shared insights with friends from both the subjectivist and objectivist camps; with members of both camps invited for hi-fi auditions on a few occasions which led to some very interesting dialogue ☺. [Ed: War!] As for myself, I feel that I’m currently straddling both sides, being able to recognize the merits (and flaws) of each. However, over time, I feel that there will be some kind of eventual reunification as the once elusive “high end” audio performance can now be obtained at far more attainable prices.
The one area in which all audio enthusiasts can unanimously agree to is that digital audio has improved significantly over the last 20 years, with the overall performance bar taking a quantum leap in the 90s, and then having that state-of-the-art performance trickle down gradually into much less costly products since the turn of the millennium. I still vividly remember being in complete awe with mouth agape when I first saw the Mark Levinson No. 30 and No 31 DAC and transport combo at a local high end store in the early '90s. That combo was insanely expensive, costing more than a new luxury car, and looked like it could have come off the captain’s quarters from Star Trek: The Next Generation’s USS Enterprise. It didn’t just sound incredible, it was the pinnacle of acoustics, aesthetics and literally cost-no-object build quality that made it widely regarded as the Holy Grail of digital high end audio for several years to come. It would have been my “preciousss” had I been able to afford it.
 |
| Mark Levinson No 30 Reference Digital Processor (Photo courtesy of Stereophile, Feb. 1992). |
Fast forward a few years and I was similarly awestruck when I saw my first HDTV feed on a 42” plasma display which at the time cost a cool $25K. Today a 42” LCD TV that is superior in every way would sell for closer to a hundredth of that price. Similarly, audio electronics have also advanced significantly in price-to-performance. Archimago not long ago measured my Oppo BDP-105 which had a measured performance that is off the charts, with noise and distortion levels that are significantly below the thresholds of human hearing acuity.
In fact, I believe that the “perceptible” (as opposed to measurable) performance of most consumer electronics products, which includes everything from digital cameras to flat screen displays to audio products have reached a plateau several years ago so the continued marketability of these products have primarily come from improving aesthetics and at the same time drastically reducing prices.
All these technological advances and marketing efforts are slowly but surely killing the subjective high-end audio industry. Once upon a time, there were mighty Mark Levinson products which were lusted for by many but attainable by only the most affluent and dedicated audiophiles. But today, something close to the “absolute sound” can be quite painlessly acquired by the masses, and it is that mass-market availability that has in no small way led to the decline and possibly the inevitable demise of high-end audio as we once knew it. An audio dealer will likely require significantly more persuasion to convince an ever shrinking base of hardcore and well-heeled audiophiles that a dCS Vivaldi digital playback system is worth $100K when one can buy an Oppo BDP-105 for a tad over $1K which also gets you one of the best Blu-Ray players available. That’s a pretty steep diminishing marginal return curve to climb no matter what your available resources. After all these years, the current reigning “preciousss” has in my opinion lost much of the sizzle in the ”s”. My MacBook Air is technologically advanced and also beautifully sculpted from curved shiny aluminum yet doesn’t have to cost six figures...
Stepping back to the subjective camp for a moment, I will make mention that Archimago stated that he feels that the Dragonfly gives an overall “warmer”, more pleasant and less hard-etched sound than the AudioEngine D3 despite a bit inferior measured performance. I think that’s yet another example of the paradox that fuels the never-ending debate between the subjective and objective camps. If the original audiophile goal should be to seek the most accurate reproduced sound possible, why do subjectivists (or even normal human beings without the “golden ears”) seem to often prefer euphonic distortions in the form of tubes, vinyl, etc.? However if the ultimate goal is to simply enjoy the music, then should we even care?
Finally, I will say a few words on my overall impression of the Dragonfly, but really, there is nothing much more that need to be said that hasn’t already been covered by many others before. It is well made and feels like a very solid and weighted USB stick. I never had the chance to do an intensive A/B test with it but the Dragonfly does a fine job of radically improving the headphone output from my MacBook Air which is most obvious when listening to AKG K-702 headphones, even though it is still a very noticeable improvement even with cheap earbuds. The soundstage is much larger, with instruments having far better stereo imaging and voices had more body and depth. The Dragonfly was able to extract significantly more micro-details, especially on live recordings so it is able to more convincingly put you at the recording venue when compared to listening straight off a MacBook Air or iPhone. The bass is full but not bloated. Overall, the sound is detailed yet well balanced and smooth. There was minimal listening fatiguing even after a couple of hours of critical listening, and I was able to listen at louder than normal levels.
Overall, this nifty $150 DAC offers exceptional price-to-performance much like a $500 DLSR or LED TV, or the latest Android smartphone or many other techno gizmo these days. Heck, it may even sound as good as the revered ML No 30 DAC (in a DBT, of course) if plugged into my main system. Near state-of-the-art performance in consumer electronics products has never been better or more attainable.
Happy listening!
I have a dragonfly 1.0 which I connect to a pair of HD600 or an old Krell 300i with Monitor Audio speakers. It just sounds so good, I don't even fell like trying the 1.2. It's great to have such a level of performance at such an affordable price.
ReplyDeleteThe other great advancement in audio is a pair of decent IEM's connected to a phone and streaming from a 320 kbps service. It's amazing to get that much entertainment for such a low price.
> Stepping back to the subjective camp for a moment, I will make mention that Archimago stated that he feels that the Dragonfly gives an overall “warmer”, more pleasant and less hard-etched sound than the AudioEngine D3 despite a bit inferior measured performance. I think that’s yet another example of the paradox that fuels the never-ending debate between the subjective and objective camps.
ReplyDeleteHopefully without sounding too insulting: there is no paradox. Ignorance regarding measurements results in "audiophiles" always claiming there is, but they have no clue about how insignificant some seemingly huge measured differences can be, or the limits of human hearing, JNDs, masking ...
That is also one reason why they usually dismiss them, besides purchase rationalization and others...
Without a proper, blind, level-matched comparison your subjective impression will be biased. This is just a fact as evidenced by research, but "audiophiles" ignore it.
Case in point (since anecdotes are loved in such cirlces), there's an entire thread on huddler-fi about the D3 where people say that it is a better match for bright headphones!
It is unfortunate that Archimago did not have a helper to compare the two in a blind fashion. I don't think he used an SPL meter to calibrate the volume. It's also unfortuante that he didn't use a lower impedance headphone where the ~10 ohms output impedance can show a much bigger effect.
Btw, so called "objectivists" love to do subjective tests and, in fact, most of the available research is based on them. What they have a problem with is bias and the nonsense spread by "subjectivists".
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWithout sounding too insulting, have you even read a single one of Archimago's reviews and how objectively he conducts his testing and measurements or are you a first time troll? Have you even listened to either the Dragonfly or D3? I guess it doesn't really matter because it seemed like you just came in to throw around objectivist buzz words to pretend you know what you are talking about.
DeleteAnd yes, there is a paradox because there are lot of people who I dare say are a lot smarter and more financially successful than you are actually buying the dCS Vivaldi system with their hard earned cash because they happen to be passionate about audio reproduction. What exactly are you passionate about besides trolling hi-fi forums to spew the most basic objective hi-fi mantra that we all here already know about? Can people not try and have a little fun besides being 100% objective all the time?
Wow, calm down!
Delete> have you even read a single one of Archimago's reviews and how objectively he conducts his testing and measurements or are you a first time troll?
Yes I have read most of his blog. But I don't know where you're going with this.
I was talking specifically about his "Subjective Evaluation" part of his Dragonfly review.
Why do you call me a troll?
> Have you even listened to either the Dragonfly or D3?
Yes, but what has this got to do with with anything? I always find it curious how "subjectivists" try to exclude other people from "their" discussion (trying to shield themselves from criticism?).
> I guess it doesn't really matter because it seemed like you just came in to throw around objectivist buzz words to pretend you know what you are talking about.
Not at all.
I can provide you with sources to all the stuff I mentioned. I am not surprised that you call them "buzz words" though, trying to denigrate and downplay the importance of those things..
> And yes, there is a paradox because there are lot of people who I dare say are a lot smarter and more financially successful than you
Ad hominem. Also, it does not logically follow what you're implying. There are smart people that defend all kinds of crazy beliefs.
Again, there is no paradox. Humans are not rational, especially not strongly "passionate" ones.
> are actually buying the dCS Vivaldi system with their hard earned cash because they happen to be passionate about audio reproduction.
I'd say "obsessed", but so what? I could also tell you anecdotes of people spending every last bit of their hard earned money on other things, including things that don't even make any sense.
> What exactly are you passionate about besides trolling hi-fi forums to spew the most basic objective hi-fi mantra that we all here already know about?
Many things, among them music, audio (re)production, truth.
It may seem trolling to you, but maybe that is just your cognitive dissonance showing? You seem angry after all..
If these are basic things, great, but it didn't seem that you already knew these "buzz words". In fact, you still seem to be in denial.
> Can people not try and have a little fun besides being 100% objective all the time?
Yes, absolutely.
Is misrepresenting a position other than yours fun to you? Calling people trolls because they don't agree with you?
----
If you don't want to reply I can understand, but *please answer this single question*:
Why do you think do several other people hear that the D3 is warmer / a better match for bright headphones, i.e. the opposite of what you hear?
PS: Again: "Objectivist camp" is a misnomer. We simply recognize the limits of perception, the strong influence of bias, rejecting the (false) tenents of subjectivism. We are *for* (proper) subjective tests!
Per Wikipedia,
DeleteIn Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]
With reference to your initial post:
“Hopefully without sounding too insulting: there is no paradox. Ignorance regarding measurements results in "audiophiles" always claiming there is, but they have no clue about how insignificant some seemingly huge measured differences can be, or the limits of human hearing, JNDs, masking ...
That is also one reason why they usually dismiss them, besides purchase rationalization and others...”
Let’s break this down... audiophil states many “audiophiles” prefer a “warmer” sound even though it may be less accurate, hence he uses the word “paradox”. This is a fact, as evidenced by Archimago after he performed a very objective testing of the two DACs which indicated that the D3 is more accurate. Even if there is a single person alive that prefers a more “inaccurate” measured sound for whatever reason, the paradox exists. This is a fact, plain and simple. You may think humans are irrational so that may well be the reason for the paradox, not that it doesn’t exist. You misinterpret that statement and then hijack it to jump into your real and only agenda which is to denounce anyone who can possibly hear a difference as “ignorant” since all this nonsense about measured differences is way beyond the limits of human hearing, yada yada.
“Without a proper, blind, level-matched comparison your subjective impression will be biased. This is just a fact as evidenced by research, but "audiophiles" ignore it.
Case in point (since anecdotes are loved in such cirlces), there's an entire thread on huddler-fi about the D3 where people say that it is a better match for bright headphones!”
Ah yes, the fully loaded objectivist doctrine... pretty much anything not DBT is biased, but certainly not any more biased as your opinion of any “audiophile” who does not share your viewpoint.
> [troll definition]
DeleteI know what a troll is, thanks. If you continue to read you can also see how calling others trolls can actually be an ad hominem, which I think is what happened above.
Also, I have posted before here and am not running away. If you want to join my "discussion" then you're welcome, if not then don't. I really don't see how this is trolling.
> audiophil states many “audiophiles” prefer a “warmer” sound even though it may be less accurate, hence he uses the word “paradox”.
What is the relationship between warmth and accuracy? You say "may" yourself, so more accurate does not automatically mean "not warm".
Regarding "accuracy", see below:
> This is a fact, as evidenced by Archimago after he performed a very objective testing of the two DACs which indicated that the D3 is more accurate.
Seriously?
1) The measurements appear unloaded, so do *not* reflect how these devices actually can drive headphones.
2) It seems you assume that you can hear -70 dB crosstalk or 0.02% THD with music. That is exactly the ignorance I argued for above.
> Even if there is a single person alive that prefers a more “inaccurate” measured sound for whatever reason, the paradox exists. This is a fact, plain and simple.
A more *inaccurate* measurement on paper does not mean that it actually sounds less accurate, that is my main argument!
This is no paradox but a lack of understanding how measurements relate to what we hear.
Also it seems you are confusing clear preferences, such as "I love a 10 dB bass boost", from the alleged paradox (disconnect between vague subjective impressions and measurements.)
> You may think humans are irrational so that may well be the reason for the paradox, not that it doesn’t exist. You misinterpret that statement and then hijack it to jump into your real and only agenda which is to denounce anyone who can possibly hear a difference as “ignorant” since all this nonsense about measured differences is way beyond the limits of human hearing, yada yada.
Now you're just trash talking. There may very well be audible differences between the devices when driving real loads, i.e. headphones. This would show up in loaded measurements as well as proper tests, and of course also in sighted tests.
> Ah yes, the fully loaded objectivist doctrine... pretty much anything not DBT is biased, but certainly not any more biased as your opinion of any “audiophile” who does not share your viewpoint.
DeleteI've told you before and will tell you again: the influence of bias is demonstrable. It has been demonstrated in a plethora of experiments including listening tests.
That you try to denigrate this by calling it a "doctrine" is a doctrine in itself. Let's call it the "subjectivist doctrine" that entails denial. (Before calling me condescending again: you reap what you sow.)
I am not free of bias - nobody is - but that is why science works so beautifully.
"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal."
-- J. Gordon Holt, founder of Stereophile
Here’s my favourite:
ReplyDelete“ > Have you even listened to either the Dragonfly or D3?
Yes, but what has this got to do with with anything? I always find it curious how "subjectivists" try to exclude other people from "their" discussion (trying to shield themselves from criticism?).”
It’s pretty clear that you don’t care about whether you can actually hear a difference or not and you are just here to insult anyone who think they can. No wonder these “subjectivist” groups will obviously want to exclude people like you from “their” discussion if all you are going to do is call them “ignorant” and “irrational”.
“It is unfortunate that Archimago did not have a helper to compare the two in a blind fashion. I don't think he used an SPL meter to calibrate the volume. It's also unfortuante that he didn't use a lower impedance headphone where the ~10 ohms output impedance can show a much bigger effect.”
Before making assumptions like that, did you bother to ask him or are you really that much of a know-it-all? If you had truly been reading Archimago’s reviews, you would know that he does calibrate volume and is extremely careful about doing this. There are many readers who think that Archimago is one of the most objective reviewers in cyberspace and thus highly respect his reviews.
> What exactly are you passionate about besides trolling hi-fi forums to spew the most basic objective hi-fi mantra that we all here already know about?
Many things, among them music, audio (re)production, truth.
It may seem trolling to you, but maybe that is just your cognitive dissonance showing? You seem angry after all..
If these are basic things, great, but it didn't seem that you already knew these "buzz words". In fact, you still seem to be in denial.
Really? Forgive me but your love for music and audio reproduction doesn’t seem to come through in your posts. You do however show a passion in promoting what you believe is your “truth” by employing a condescending, self-righteous tone. Yes, I seem angry, but not because you have a viewpoint, but because you are making a lot of assumptions for facts you are ignorant of, quoting just snippets of what Archimago stated but completely ignoring the “objective” parts. I am angry because you are essentially hijacking someone else’s blog to promote your personal agenda which is to diss a whole lot of audio enthusiasts including a backhanded slap at Archimago himself, who has taken careful steps to write “balanced” reviews to try and address and respect a wide range of audience.
If you don't want to reply I can understand, but *please answer this single question*:
Why do you think do several other people hear that the D3 is warmer / a better match for bright headphones, i.e. the opposite of what you hear?
This is very strange question coming from you. Go read your initial posting. You never stated that YOU thought the D3 is warmer and a better match for bright headphones. You just mentioned another group that found the D3 is better for bright headphones. I don’t have a problem with that. In fact, it sounds like you were dissing that group as well.
The average person would read that your position is that anyone who thinks they can hear any difference is “ignorant” and weren’t listening under DBT conditions and had those conditions been properly controlled, there shouldn’t be a measurable, and hence audible difference. I don’t even have a problem with someone who believes that as “objectivists” are also entitled to their own opinion. It’s the choice of words and highly judgmental, condescending tone that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. There is a term for it, and it is defined at the very top of this post.
> It’s pretty clear that you don’t care about whether you can actually hear a difference or not and you are just here to insult anyone who think they can.
DeleteSo now you claim that you can read my mind? No, you are sorely mistaken.
> No wonder these “subjectivist” groups will obviously want to exclude people like you from “their” discussion if all you are going to do is call them “ignorant” and “irrational”.
*Everyone* is ignorant about some things and partly irrational. Did I not say that is human?!
Feeling so attacked (not you specifically) really is telling...
> Before making assumptions like that, did you bother to ask him or are you really that much of a know-it-all?
Have you read Archimago's review? He reports his subjective impressions based on the 300 ohm HD800. There are other headphones on the picture, but he only mentions the 100 ohm ER-4B shortly in the end... still too high to exhibit great interaction with the output impedance.
> You do however show a passion in promoting what you believe is your “truth” by employing a condescending, self-righteous tone.
There is no "my truth". Me pointing out ignorance is condescending, but you calling me a troll, implying I'm closed-minded etc. is not?
> I am angry because you are essentially hijacking someone else’s blog to promote your personal agenda which is to diss a whole lot of audio enthusiasts including a backhanded slap at Archimago himself, who has taken careful steps to write “balanced” reviews to try and address and respect a wide range of audience.
Wow, calm down. As I said before, if you don't want to comment then don't. I'm not hijacking anything.
Also I love Archimago and his blog. Sorry for not spamming "+1" comments, but instead trying to make corrections.
> This is very strange question coming from you.
You have not answered but evaded the question. How do you explain those opposite subjective impressions? Do you suggest another "paradox"? :P
> The average person would read that your position is that anyone who thinks they can hear any difference is “ignorant” and weren’t listening under DBT conditions and had those conditions been properly controlled, there shouldn’t be a measurable, and hence audible difference. I don’t even have a problem with someone who believes that as “objectivists” are also entitled to their own opinion. It’s the choice of words and highly judgmental, condescending tone that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. There is a term for it, and it is defined at the very top of this post.
No no, that is not my nor any "objectivists" position.
People genuinely hear differencse. Some of it can be attributed to biases (that's just a fact as shown in tests) and some of it can be attributed to real differences in sound.
There are always measurable differences. But yes, if there are only small measurable differences between something like headphone DAC/amps (properly loaded) you very likely won't be able to hear differences in a proper test. If you do however hear differences in a sighted test, then it follows logically that your impressions were biased.
xnoreq
ReplyDeleteYou know that when you calm down and take the time to explain your thoughts, you make more sense and I have no issues with your viewpoints and you seem to have a good knowledge of audio. My issue was with your original post where you go out of your way to call out all "audiophiles" as ignorant, and then discredit Archimago's testing method even though the man clearly knows what he is doing. You simply assumed the he didn't match the levels properly and if he had conducted a proper test under DBT conditions, he would have come to a different conclusion. You then close by saying all "subjectivists" spew only "nonsense". You're the one who seemed genuinely "angry" at "audiophiles" and your direct prejudiced attacks against them could not be interpreted as anything other than offensive, which may be defined as "trolling".
In your latest post you appear to backpedal quite a bit from your original stance (I won't list it out). You keep telling me to calm down and chill but it was you who made the original provocative comments which were uncalled for.
I have known both "subjectivists" and "objectivists". It's funny that the former seems to have way more fun with audio as they happily "upgrade" their system by changing this and that, blowing away their hard earned cash. But hey, they genuinely have fun. They talk music and audio with other hobbyists and generally leave everyone else alone. It's the "objectivists" who seldom seem to have any fun with audio and their hobby seems centred on either mocking "audiophiles" or trying to reform them from their "ignorance" (usually not in a kind way) and typically the ones picking the fight. Which group seems angrier and which group seems to be having more fun? Food for thought.
Archimago's testing is fine for what it is, but that doesn't mean that drawing false conclusions from it is.
DeleteHe said: "It's impossible to "instantaneously" switch headphones / DACs and then level-match compare... I tried my best."
I may very well be wrong about the helper and SPL meter comment.
> he would have come to a different conclusion
Not necessarily.
How do *you* explain the opposite impressions that other people have?
I'm completely calm, not angry at all. I just dislike misinformation, especially on a science-minded blog.
I can give you counter-anecdotes of "subjectivists" that are never happy with their system, always looking for another upgrade, another tweak ... while those who did proper tests are extremely happy with their system, also knowing that they did not spend a 1000% price premium for no real gain.
Risking to sound condescending to you again: ignorance can be bliss, but in an area such as audio reproduction I'll choose knowledge any time.
What would audio be today if it were not for rigorous, positively skeptical people, scientists ...