Depends on how you define 'clarity'. If distortion was the answer, the 600/650>800 theory would be correct, especially if it was correlative to subjective impressions. The fact that a listener can easily point out specific instances of increased resolution and transparency to the original recording using the HD800 over the 600/650 tells you distortion is not the sole answer (as we have seen it is not for amps). However, it may certainly be part of the whole equation. If you want to actually pursue the argument, start by actually defining your terms first in plain English, then we can convert those definitions into electrical theory, math and science. Just posting a few sets of select graphs w/o strong correlations that are also in dispute with each other only serves to confirm the difficulty in measuring headphones, and that we need to take all objective data in relative contexts rather than universal absolutes. So far, I agree with you that measuring headphones and drawing strong conclusions from their data sets is difficult.
Subjectively, Tyll did just get a new amp from Doug which apparently takes it to a new level he did not appreciate back in 2010, perhaps even well into 2013. Might want to ask him for his impressions of clarity and transparency between the 600/650/800 w/ the new Doug amp. Or he could chime in if he sees this.
Rant inc. (warning) My problem w/ the religious objectifiers is their utter ignorance and hypocrisy. They remind me of the fanatics that pop out of the woodwork regularly holding up their signs and screaming "the world is ending, repent now!" This claim has been going on for ages and is nothing unique, original or special about it. It's as if they have suddenly uncovered the golden tablets or Moroni or some shit. Nothing new under the sun to see here if you know the reference. Some of the folks I find to be the most fanatic advocates of 'science' are nothing but religious zealots disguised. The minute you stop questioning your results and beliefs, you are no longer a 'scientist'. Perhaps a glorified lab assistant at best.
The hypocrisy also comes from their utter disregard for hearing as a sensory tool that can be honed and trained, then applied to a rigid methodology. A tool that has evolved as a necessary one to provide for our survival over millions of years btw. Yet, they go home every night, flip a light switch and trust their eyes! How do they objectively verify that a light bulb is actually working? Break a bulb, grab a meter and check for continuity across the filaments? No. They just look at it, trust their eyes and the repeatability of the subjective experience. So in eyes we trust, but ears we do not? Yet, they don't run around and say stupid things like, "how do you know the bulb is actually on, did you measure it?" "Maybe you're just biased towards seeing the light because the bulbs came in a prettier box." Just because bias exists doesn't mean you throw the baby out w/ the bath water. This type of trust/belief that the light bulb is in fact on is based in inductive logic, every bit as valuable as deductive logic. Perhaps even more so since it can be applied to wider ranges of conditions more quickly and easily. Yet ears become totally worthless in audio, especially for anything over $100 w/ these people. What a bunch of hypocritical garbage. And all because of a couple of pseudo experiments that get thrown around the web like the 10 Commandments despite their inability to mitigate the introduction of errors at various points along the way. Errors need to be mitigated in objective electric
al testing just as they do in subjective listening.
Anyway, if you want to get to the bottom of things, look at our DAC comparison chart and use whatever tools you have at your disposal to determine why they are perceived to sound differently as has been independently verified via subjective listening. As you say, they should be light years ahead wrt fidelity so they should sound the same. Once you get to the bottom of that, then we can likely apply that new knowledge to examining transducers.
I would also say you are looking the transducer/dac-amp relationship backwards or incorrectly. The fact that 'fidelity' wrt headphones is more varied than w/ DACs/amps has nothing to do with their intended functions. The job of the transducer is to reproduce those tiny, miniscule differences occuring upstream. In essence, it is designed to be a looking glass (or magnifying glass depending on your phone/perspective) and let us hear how well that upstream gear is performing at reproducing dynamic and complex musical passages. That is their job. Scopes let us look at snap shots of very specific periods and samples of specific parameters. Equating one with the other, or discarding one set in favor of the other is simply incorrect. Good science does NOT ignore or disregard data, whatever it is. In the professional world you can do that, if you want to get fired, sued or go to jail. This practice is of course acceptable for internet warriors the world over however.
Just a reminder to those who have never realized this sites mission statement or may have forgotten. This site is not merely designed to regurgitate objective data. It is to correlate the subjective w/ the objective and explore the discrepancies that have yet to be resolved in that relationship. However, well articulated disagreement is welcome and rewarded with copious amounts of Grog.
Ass talk regurgitated from certain other sites w/o the benefit of independent thought or analysis is severely punished.
