The term “audiophile” is often not denoted in a positive light — boomers who still use AV receivers and large, ugly headphones interconnected with a ton of wires and power bricks in an age where the market is predominated by Bluetooth and portability. Others may come to draw parallels between audiophile and snake oil, when there are people believing that expensive cables can make large differences in audio quality. In China, the term used for referring to audiophiles is “发烧友”, directly translating to friend with a fever or one who burns through their pockets. In short, high-fidelity audio (hi-fi) is an area plagued with misinformation and sophisms that often deter your average logical, budget-conscious consumer. Hell, the term “hi-res audio” was not even invented until 2015.
I’ve read lots of articles from scientific studies by Harman International to people explaining why you need a $1,100 Ethernet Cable with Gold in it, as well as reviews ranging from IEMs to home theater setups in both English and Chinese forums. However, reading through hundreds of articles throughout the web can seem quite daunting for someone that just wants to hear a better sound, so in this series of writeups I’m hoping to clear up some of the most common misunderstandings, explain what the common audiophile terms stand for, and help navigate your ideal sound. In this article we’ll start with the myths and misconceptions.
- Cables Make a Large Difference in Sound
False 99.99% of the time. Especially for larger gear such as speakers and headphones, cables make absolutely no difference. Then what about the 0.01% happen? In-ear monitors (IEMs) tend to be much more sensitive to source transmission compared to headphones, and even then, only in the most sensitive IEMs (120 dB/mW SPL+) you may perhaps hear a difference in cables. One notoriously sensitive IEM is the Campfire Andromeda that apparently has a different frequency response depending on the source and connection due to its poor circuit design. I happened to have owned one for 1.5 years (quite long in audiophile terms), and also changed multiple cables in between. Even in a badly designed, highly sensitive IEM I am still hard pressed to answer if I had ever heard any differences between the different cables.
One famous Hi-fi convention in China had a listening test every year to determine how good one’s ability to tell between different audio equipment is, and over its whole history spanning 10+ years only one person has achieved the status of being able to tell differences in cables via a blind-test. Given that information, I’m still skeptical since statistics may as well suggest that one person guessing correctly is just a matter of probability. Who knows? Maybe he does have gifted ears from God.
2. Burn-in is Real
Its not. Burn-in is the idea that new headphone drivers cannot run to its full potential out-of-the-box, so it is necessary to let it “burn” by playing music until the drivers are warmed up, just like the idea of warming up your body before exercise. I too once subscribed to this idea, having paid money for a burn-in app on my phone and let my headphones routinely run on white noise for eight hours daily totaling three weeks before picking them back up again. However, there is more brain “burn-in” than actual driver burn-in. Studies have showed that test subjects were not able to tell the difference in a blind A/B experiment between pairs of burned-in headphones and new ones. Nor were there significant changes to the frequency response graph apparent to human hearing.
Therefore, what makes a headphone hobbyist comment “Wow! These headphones sound a lot better 50 hours in than they did right out of the box!” is often attributed to the period it takes for the brain to adjust to a new signature. Once we listen to a pair of headphones long enough, our minds adapt to its sound and uses that as a comparison against other sounds we hear. So when people say “Wow this sounds a lot better!” or “These headphones suck! There is no bass!” They are comparing relatively to their current headphones, or Beats, which is their sense of “neutrality”. This is also why esteemed audio reviewers often listen to a pair of neutral monitor headphones for a while before reviewing new audio gear, such that they understand what the audio gear’s sound signature is relative to a flat frequency response.
3. Source Gear is Unnecessary
False. Many people don’t believe in the necessity of having a Digital-to-Analog Converter (DAC) and Amplifier (AMP) to make their headphones sound good. Others consider that having cheap source can ruin a headphone’s sound. The purpose of a “good” source is to properly power our audio equipment, minimize distortion and stay true to the album’s original intentions. In 2020, most major brand smartphone headphone jacks already offer considerably good audio quality, and even Apple’s $9 dongle measures very well. Digital Audio Portables (DAPs), which are portable DAC and AMP combinations, really seem like a relic of the past as they are synonymous with MP3 players. For portable audio needs, a smartphone is more than enough for the majority of users, and can easily outperform most low- and mid-tier offerings from DAP makers, yet brands such as Astell & Kern and Lotoo are still well-regarded in their premium offerings by having a unique house signature to their players.
Nevertheless, certain full-sized headphones can be difficult to drive, and the amount of power necessary to drive a headphone adequately (referred to as Ohms Ω) is inversely proportional to a headphone’s sensitivity. Although a smartphone or dongle may not be enough to drive the popular 300 Ω headphone, if we are purely talking about power and measurements, then $200 would be more than sufficient for a good AMP & DAC.
Then do tube amps, which measure horribly and also quite expensive, have no purpose to their existences? Not necessarily. Most expensive sources either offer a greater amount of power, marginally better performance in the unmeasurable aspects of sound (we’ll talk about this later), or make their own interpretations of the music (such is the case of tube amps). However, for those arguing that sources with more power sound better, I recommend a checkup at the audiologist’s office since the only thing more power will offer you is louder sound and faster pace to going deaf.
Lastly, if I were to quantity how much of a difference source components would make, I’d say it would be 90% headphones and 10% DAC & AMP. The general consensus is that it is much better to buy new headphones than spend that money on sources. Regardless, I had also personally spent a fair share of money in purchasing source gear. Although the difference may only be 10%, sometimes that final bit of excitement to the music (and perhaps placebo) really makes a difference to my ears. Another explanation is that although smartphones may have well-engineered designs, most computers have really bad audio output. I remember plugging the Andromedas onto my laptop headphone jack, and I can hear a very noticeable hiss (sensitive IEMs tend to exhibit a hiss when plugged into bad sources) and the music was distinctly harsh to listen to.
4. Vinyl Recordings Sound Better than CDs
NOT EXACTLY FALSE. CDs were first invented by Sony and is known for the 16 bit uncompressed audio. Vinyl actually offers much lower bitrate than CDs, yet people often say that vinyl sounds a lot better. When a studio records music, there are three versions to the song or album. One for streaming, one for CDs, and one for vinyl. The vinyl recording is mastered with less dynamic compression, hence a reason to why some people may be adamant about purchasing a vinyl remastered version of an 80s album.
Since we are on the issue of audio quality, another important chain alongside headphones and sources that dictate the finally sound we hear, there are a couple of points here to point out as well. Audiophiles like me seek to download lossless audio, believing that it’ll make a significant difference to the normie consumer Spotify streaming audio quality. The short conclusion is that so long as it is 320 kbps (the paid high-quality option on Spotify), the difference is very minor compared to anything above it. There is even a test to see if you can be part of the 1% that can tell the difference.
Since CD-level 16 bit audio is already considered lossless and most people can’t tell the difference, neither should you believe the marketing gimmicks (or anything written by whathifi really) that calls for 24 bit, 32 bit, or Master Quality Audio (MQA). If your preferred audio player offers the option to download it at no additional costs then it’s all the best, but if not you shouldn’t worry at all.
5. Headphones Sound Best with Harman Curve
This is the last but also most complicated point. The Harman Target Curve was created to represent the ideal frequency response most people would enjoy. It was a result of Harman International (now acquired by Samsung) providing hundreds of volunteers throughout different regions with dozens of headphones varying in price and sound signature, and the test subjects would mark down sound preferences for each one. Their findings were quite surprising: most people preferred relatively cheap headphones that were equalized (EQ’d) to a specific sound signature than headphones that cost four digits. They would come to find the frequency response that achieved the highest average sound preference score and name it the Harman Curve, with revisions made yearly to better reflect changing preferences and more accuracy to ideal sound signature.
“Then why don’t all headphones follow this target curve?” Part of the audiophile community that is purely science-based would make this argument, and they aren’t completely wrong. In an ideal scenario, every audio company would be making products strictly adhering to the Harman Curve. However, besides acknowledging the fact that individual preferences vary, one also has to take into account the drivers and engineering of the headphones. I won’t delve too deep into the science behind it since I’m no expert, but summing it up different headphones are constructed differently to perform to the ideal sound signature envisioned by its creator. Take for example the Sennheiser HD800S, a pair of headphones well-known for its superb soundstage and imaging that I used to own briefly. Its original sound signature is not too well-liked, and as a result many people suggest EQ-ing the headphones to match the Harman Curve. However, once I applied the EQ, the most defining traits about the headphones are gone. The imaging of the instruments is noticeably more congested, and classical music lose a sense of air and naturalness to their tones.
I strongly believe that the makers of the headphone keep in mind what specific traits they want their headphones to be, and build the drivers around it. If the Harman Curve was able to retain the desired traits of a pair of headphones without sacrificing the intangibles (dynamics, imaging, soundstage, note weight…anything that is not measured on a frequency response diagram), then I believe most creators would opt for a Harman tuning guaranteeing them some mild success, and there would be no reason to spend any money at all purchasing expensive gear. It is both an enjoyable sound signature and strong technicalities that create a good pair of headphones, and too often people would forget one or the other.
Conclusion
I’m very thankful to everyone that is reading this. Most of what I’m writing is just a lot of stuff that I’ve been wanting to get off my chest, and having even one person read through and listen to what I have to blab about will already be more than enough for me. Hopefully I can keep this series up and continue producing better content. Next post will likely be my unboxing of a good amount of audio gear that’s finally arriving soon, and later on I’ll write another post in this series explaining the audiophile terms I’m using and how I got into this rabbit hole.
TJ's E-wastebasket 