Alpha Dog - review (3D printed headphone mod)

[quadpatch]

This is my first headphone review in a while. I got to play with this one all over Christmas so I've been a happy bunny. See here for my full thoughts:

http://noblehifi.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/alpha-dog-review.html

 

[dalethorn]

I like the comment in the review that says it's easier to hear the difference going from a better sound to a lesser sound (to hear what you're missing) than vice-versa (to hear what you're gaining). This phenomenon goes a ways toward explaining why most double-blind tests of cables or DACs or 44 khz WAV versus 96 khz WAV fail.

 

[Anonymous]

That's fighting talk Dale. I like it. 320 kbps MP3 vs. FLAC/WAV/Apple Lossless. Now there's another debate, along with 24 bit vs. 16 bit.

 

[dalethorn]

That's fighting talk Dale. I like it. 320 kbps MP3 vs. FLAC/WAV/Apple Lossless. Now there's another debate, along with 24 bit vs. 16 bit.

Heh heh. All for a worthy cause (if I could just figure out which one).

 

[quadpatch]

I like the comment in the review that says it's easier to hear the difference going from a better sound to a lesser sound (to hear what you're missing) than vice-versa (to hear what you're gaining). This phenomenon goes a ways toward explaining why most double-blind tests of cables or DACs or 44 khz WAV versus 96 khz WAV fail.

I think we spoke about this a bit in another post and since then I try to work it into most of my reviews. I likened it before to moving to a faster or slower PC. Faster is always easier, your brain just accepts the changes and adapts without you noticing much. Perception's a b****!

 

[fr0g]

I like the comment in the review that says it's easier to hear the difference going from a better sound to a lesser sound (to hear what you're missing) than vice-versa (to hear what you're gaining). This phenomenon goes a ways toward explaining why most double-blind tests of cables or DACs or 44 khz WAV versus 96 khz WAV fail.

They fail because there is no audible difference. Unless you happen to have the hearing of a mosquito. 44 KHz will give you a perfect analogue reconstruction up to 22 KHz. No human can hear that high frequency.

So, it explains nothing of the sort.

 

[dalethorn]

They fail because there is no audible difference. Unless you happen to have the hearing of a mosquito. 44 KHz will give you a perfect analogue reconstruction up to 22 KHz. No human can hear that high frequency. So, it explains nothing of the sort.

Actually you're clearly wrong without a doubt. You cannot say logically that you know beyond any exclusion or exception that "there is no audible difference". You can only say that you haven't heard it, or what tests you've read about don't report it. Too many people make absolutist statements that fail on their face, and you're doing it here.

Edit: I should add that's there's a world beyond frequency - phase and impulse, etc. The 44 khz of the CD/WAV track isn't the same as 44 khz in analog. The WAV track is a sampling in bits (1408 kilobits/second), and the bits can't account for everything on the extremely complex analog sound waves, since those waves aren't single tones, and they're often of a complexity such that only highly trained people can hear certain things in those sounds in the analog domain, before it even gets to digital.

So for people who can't hear differences that are easily measured - great!! Save your money and avoid building a large pricy collection of 96k or 192k or (gasp) 384k tracks. But when you build an expensive collection of 44 khz tracks and then discover later that you can hear the difference after all, it could be a serious and expensive disappointment.

 

[pauln]

They fail because there is no audible difference. Unless you happen to have the hearing of a mosquito. 44 KHz will give you a perfect analogue reconstruction up to 22 KHz. No human can hear that high frequency. So, it explains nothing of the sort.

Actually you're clearly wrong without a doubt. You cannot say logically that you know beyond any exclusion or exception that "there is no audible difference". You can only say that you haven't heard it, or what tests you've read about don't report it. Too many people make absolutist statements that fail on their face, and you're doing it here.

Yes indeed, too many people do make absolutist statements.

And I think the expression you were attempting to use is "fall flat on their face" Of course, only highly trained people would notice the difference.

For more information see here: http://www.superherodb.com/powers/Enhanced_Hearing/

 

[fr0g]

They fail because there is no audible difference. Unless you happen to have the hearing of a mosquito. 44 KHz will give you a perfect analogue reconstruction up to 22 KHz. No human can hear that high frequency. So, it explains nothing of the sort.

Actually you're clearly wrong without a doubt. You cannot say logically that you know beyond any exclusion or exception that "there is no audible difference". You can only say that you haven't heard it, or what tests you've read about don't report it. Too many people make absolutist statements that fail on their face, and you're doing it here.

Edit: I should add that's there's a world beyond frequency - phase and impulse, etc. The 44 khz of the CD/WAV track isn't the same as 44 khz in analog. The WAV track is a sampling in bits (1408 kilobits/second), and the bits can't account for everything on the extremely complex analog sound waves, since those waves aren't single tones, and they're often of a complexity such that only highly trained people can hear certain things in those sounds in the analog domain, before it even gets to digital.

So for people who can't hear differences that are easily measured - great!! Save your money and avoid building a large pricy collection of 96k or 192k or (gasp) 384k tracks. But when you build an expensive collection of 44 khz tracks and then discover later that you can hear the difference after all, it could be a serious and expensive disappointment.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the Nyquist-Shannon theorum.

There are indeed some HD tracks that sound better than their 44 KHz equivalent. I used to buy them.

But then one day I did an experiment. I downsampled (Audacity) to 44 KHz.

I then used the ABX comparison tool in Foobar to ABX them.

And they were identical.

You would find the same. As would any human ears.

 

[dalethorn]

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the Nyquist-Shannon theorum. There are indeed some HD tracks that sound better than their 44 KHz equivalent. I used to buy them. But then one day I did an experiment. I downsampled (Audacity) to 44 KHz. I then used the ABX comparison tool in Foobar to ABX them. And they were identical. You would find the same. As would any human ears.

You speak like a wild-eyed religious cultist: "You seem to have a misunderstanding of .... blah blah blah ...", as though the theorem were the word of God. No, it isn't, and it cannot claim to encompass *every* possible aspect of sound the brain can hear, although it may do that in someone's mind.

You need to learn more and be less of a Calvinist, because your ferver for debunking is missing a lot of data. You know the data is deliberately discarded at ADC time, yet you argue hopelessly that "it doesn't matter". It's a *lazy* argument by persons who are too tired or apathetic to pursue that which others recognize to be important.

 

[fr0g]

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the Nyquist-Shannon theorum. There are indeed some HD tracks that sound better than their 44 KHz equivalent. I used to buy them. But then one day I did an experiment. I downsampled (Audacity) to 44 KHz. I then used the ABX comparison tool in Foobar to ABX them. And they were identical. You would find the same. As would any human ears.

You speak like a wild-eyed religious cultist: "You seem to have a misunderstanding of .... blah blah blah ...", as though the theorem were the word of God. No, it isn't, and it cannot claim to encompass *every* possible aspect of sound the brain can hear, although it may do that in someone's mind.

You need to learn more and be less of a Calvinist, because your ferver for debunking is missing a lot of data. You know the data is deliberately discarded at ADC time, yet you argue hopelessly that "it doesn't matter". It's a *lazy* argument by persons who are too tired or apathetic to pursue that which others recognize to be important.

Pseudo-intellectual babble. Not to mention Ad hominem.

There is no cult belief, there is simply the science that has been repeatedly shown to be true. If someone shows it not to be and comes up with a new set of necessary figures, then I will listen to that. It isn't likely though.

The "ferver" as you call it, isn't for debunking, it's against people spreading nonsense as fact.

Believe what you like though, it's your money.

By the way, if the theorum was "The word of God" rather than scientifically proven, then I wouldn't mention it, as it would almost certainly be BS.

 

[Anonymous]

Fr0gface, you only post here to argue with dalethorn. Just leave it, thanks.

 

[fr0g]

Fr0gface, you only post here to argue with dalethorn. Just leave it, thanks.

Erm no.You are mistaken, Chip.

 

[fr0g]

Fr0gface, you only post here to argue with dalethorn. Just leave it, thanks.

Erm no.You are mistaken, Chip. I posted here as, 1. I was interested in the thread, 2. Dale is posting something which I disagree with.

I have no issue with you or your furry friend, but I do have an issue with the con that is HD music...

 

[dalethorn]

Pseudo-intellectual babble. Not to mention Ad hominem. There is no cult belief, there is simply.....

Ad hominem applies when attacking a person, but since you're a debunker spewing specious dogma, it doesn't apply to you.

There is simply what - a human mind/brain that's much smarter than the pseudo-intellectual rationalizations of a debunker. You can continue posting about what I can't hear and what others can't hear, but you're talking only to people who want to believe you - possibly because they believe what they see on the telly.

I've grown out of that froggie.

 

[Anonymous]

Fr0gface, you only post here to argue with dalethorn. Just leave it, thanks.

Erm no.You are mistaken, Chip. I posted here as, 1. I was interested in the thread, 2. Dale is posting something which I disagree with.

I have no issue with you or your furry friend, but I do have an issue with the con that is HD music...

Just adding to your post count Fr0ggie? 1. don't call me Chip, Fr0gface; and 2. I don't know what you mean by furry friend. It's not Chip 'N' Dale you know.....

 

[fr0g]

Pseudo-intellectual babble. Not to mention Ad hominem. There is no cult belief, there is simply.....

Ad hominem applies when attacking a person, but since you're a debunker spewing specious dogma, it doesn't apply to you.

There is simply what - a human mind/brain that's much smarter than the pseudo-intellectual rationalizations of a debunker. You can continue posting about what I can't hear and what others can't hear, but you're talking only to people who want to believe you - possibly because they believe what they see on the telly.

I've grown out of that froggie.

Clearly not.

 

[dalethorn]

Clearly not.

Your current problem froog is, you think it matters that you should spew your disagreement all over this forum without ANY accompanying facts, like you did here. I will add some facts: My ears and brain are very perceptive, and they exceed your denial of what I can hear. I hear much more than frequencies, but you deny (via Nyquist et al) that there are more than frequencies involved. Nyquist is history, poorly researched since consumer digital was new then.

Maybe instead of repeating "I disagree, I disagree" ad nauseam, you could instead do some research and find what you've been missing. If all you have is denial and old discredited research and you continue with it, you know what that means.

 

[pauln]

I will add some facts: My ears and brain are very perceptive, and they exceed your denial of what I can hear. I hear much more than frequencies...

Wow.

In order to be fact, your claims must have been demonstrated to be true - is that the case? Do you have some kind of evidence to back up your claims?

What is a fact and can be easily verified is that you have been banned from more than a few forums for being obnoxiously rude to those that disagree with your opinions. There is no room for debate with Dale because Dale is right. End of story.

 

[Anonymous]

He is quite open to debate. In fact, Fr0gface and you appear to be not. Time to lock the thread.

 

[fr0g]

Clearly not.

I will add some facts: My ears and brain are very perceptive, and they exceed your denial of what I can hear. I hear much more than frequencies, but you deny (via Nyquist et al) that there are more than frequencies involved. Nyquist is history, poorly researched since consumer digital was new then.

Erm.

What can you "hear" that isn't a frequency?

Nyquist-Shannon is not "history". It's accepted science. If you know more then do tell us.

 

[dalethorn]

Erm. What can you "hear" that isn't a frequency? Nyquist-Shannon is not "history". It's accepted science. If you know more then do tell us.

It's certainly "accepted" by froggy, who BTW isn't a scientist.

Your theory was considered bogus by real scientists 30-plus years ago when commercial interests backed by big money began their disinformation campaign to sell dumbed-down digital to the public.

Accepted science today knows better, unless of course you've been reading the kind of scientists who "believe" in the Magic Bullet theory. Yours is at least that good.

 

[fr0g]

Erm. What can you "hear" that isn't a frequency? Nyquist-Shannon is not "history". It's accepted science. If you know more then do tell us.

It's certainly "accepted" by froggy, who BTW isn't a scientist.

Your theory was considered bogus by real scientists 30-plus years ago when commercial interests backed by big money began their disinformation campaign to sell dumbed-down digital to the public.

Accepted science today knows better, unless of course you've been reading the kind of scientists who "believe" in the Magic Bullet theory. Yours is at least that good.

Which real scientists are these? Have you links to papers? What is the "accepted" science you seem to believe exists?

Or is this a case of you making stuff up? Because I clearly am not.

 

[dalethorn]

Which real scientists are these? Have you links to papers? What is the "accepted" science you seem to believe exists? Or is this a case of you making stuff up? Because I clearly am not.

Of course you're not making things up. I know that. The Warren Commission wasn't making things up either. They merely quoted an "expert" in ballistics theory.

I suppose you're in the wrong forum. You probably would have a better fit in the forums who operate on the principle "Admit nothing. Deny everything. Demand proof, then refuse to accept it". I personally know a number of people who work those boards. I know quite a few religion purveyors who are just as convincing.

The digital world has long ago passed you and Nyquist by. We know today that listening to sine waves of 20 khz isn't comparable to listening to an orchestral crescendo in a highres system.

 

[fr0g]

Which real scientists are these? Have you links to papers? What is the "accepted" science you seem to believe exists? Or is this a case of you making stuff up? Because I clearly am not.

Of course you're not making things up. I know that. The Warren Commission wasn't making things up either. They merely quoted an "expert" in ballistics theory.

I suppose you're in the wrong forum. You probably would have a better fit in the forums who operate on the principle "Admit nothing. Deny everything. Demand proof, then refuse to accept it". I personally know a number of people who work those boards. I know quite a few religion purveyors who are just as convincing.

The digital world has long ago passed you and Nyquist by. We know today that listening to sine waves of 20 khz isn't comparable to listening to an orchestral crescendo in a highres system.

You see all you can do is throw insults and insinuations. I am merely asking for links to where Nyquist theory has been superceded. If they exist and turn out to be authentic science, then I will apologise and adjust my views accordingly.

You haven't given me anything conrete whatsoever.

"The digital world has long ago passed (sic) you and Nyquist"...please, elaborate, or if you can't elaborate with evidence, science and proofs (which Nyquist still can), then your words are nothing but ramblings.

"We know today that listening to sine waves of 20 khz isn't comparable to listening to an orchestral crescendo in a highres system."

Ignoring the obvious fact that the sentence is a truism (listening to an orchestral cresendo on a mono radio isn't comparible to listening to sine waves in a highres system either, but so what? )Who knows? Just you and your expectation bias? Or someone who can demonstrate that theory scientifically?