HiFi Music: Listening, Sources, Tracks? | Thanks. Glad...

Feb 9, 2019

ShowpanI cringe at low quality Spotify and have to turn it off ASAP.. My ears don’t notice a huge difference between Tidal premium and DSD (highest quality) other than i’ve Noticed better /more neutral mastering with DSD versions. So I still think Tidal premium is the way to go. I’ve also heard 320kbps mp3s that have fooled me that I thought we’re FLAC.

(Edited)

Feb 9, 2019

Feb 9, 2019

HaVoCTzuSo I guess it depends

Feb 9, 2019

Vote

Feb 10, 2019

HaVoCTzuHave you done a blind test? 320kbps is supposed to be indistinguishable from lossless. Here's a blind test you can do: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html If you don't have time, do the shortest test which has 5 songs and 5 repetitions per song, so a total of 25 repetitions. You must complete the whole test, the more repetitions you do the statistics become less skewed by chance/luck. Remember hearing a "difference" doesn't mean it sounds better. Just look at the 'loudness war', people love the sound even when its clipped. In the test you'll have to concentrate 110% to hear differences, by then you're no longer enjoying the music

(Edited)

Feb 10, 2019

Feb 10, 2019

HaVoCTzuLowest quality setting on Spotify would obviously sound worse than lossless. 160kbps, c'mon what's the point of the comparison. Dsd Vs tidal highest quality has audible difference? I wonder how much of it was down to placebo effect or bias.

(Edited)

Feb 10, 2019

Vote

Feb 10, 2019

ShowpanThe difference from The DSD copy of thriller that I own seems to have better mastering than the Tidal version of thriller. So I don’t think it is a fair comparison. I’ll do the other test later.

Feb 10, 2019

Vote

Feb 17, 2019

ShowpanThe high-end audio market couldn’t exist and sustain itself if there wasn’t a high-end experience to be had. Not trying to pick a fight here, but your advice that 16-bits and $150 amps are good enough for anybody is as much a misleading oversimplification as someone claiming that certain cables will dramatically transform one’s listening experience. The truth is that an optimal listening experience requires every link in the playback chain to be strong, and accomplishing that is both difficult and expensive. You can’t just generalize about bit depths and dollar amounts, because whether your idea of good enough is good enough for someone else depends on how well your music-listening goals, values and budgets align. If you’re simply convinced that 16-bit audio and $150 amps deliver everything that we humans can perceive, try a google search for “HiFi near me” and see if you can’t find some boutique shops in your area with 5-figure-and-up 2-channel systems in their listening rooms. Make a day of it—go listen to a few of your favorite tracks (ones that you know well) on their systems and see if you don’t come away with some new appreciation for what a great audio playback system can deliver. Full disclosure: I own a lot of expensive audio gear, like Focal Utopias and Sonus Faber loudspeakers. But before you write me off as an under-educated placebophile, you ought to also know that I’m an engineer who got to this point through years of painstaking skepticism and personal research. Much of what’s really true in the pursuit of audiophilia is masked by believable half-truths (like the 16/44, Nyquist theory, blah, blah, blah) and discredited by the prevalence of exorbitantly priced snake oil gear.

Feb 17, 2019

Feb 18, 2019

SpeleoFoolCool I'm an engineer also if that even means anything to 'audiophiles'. $150 for just a headphone amp is a lot of money. Especially in this day and age where electronics cost nothing to manufacture thanks to cheap labour in Asian countries. Of course amps to power speakers would cost a lot more. It wouldn't be possible to do a blind test in stores. In stores you are inundated with bullcrap the salesperson try to use to make you buy things. There's a big price tag on everything as if to show off the higher price means better AUDIBLE performance. First thing you walk in they will smile and try befriend you so there's already some leniency and bias in you the second you step in. Who knows, perhaps the higher end market exist purely because of dubious marketing, placebo effect, and elitists who have so much money to expend to show off their audio system they barely have to time to actually sit down and listen to. I'm just saying there's crap in every price range. You can have $100 headphones that sound as good or better than $1000, vice versa.

Feb 18, 2019

Vote

Feb 18, 2019

ShowpanThanks for a polite reply. I’ve received plenty of less-civil responses when I’ve spoken up to defend audiophilia. Identifying as an engineer leads me to assume that you value questioning everything, getting to the bottom of whys and hows, and keeping things rational and measurable (as much as possible). It gives me faith that I can explain how I’ve made sense of my own experiences plus what I’ve read, and that you won’t take me at my word, but I won’t expect you to. Best case, I give you some hypotheses to test, if you’re inclined. I don’t want to turn this into a deluge of detail, so where to start? Maybe on a point of agreement: that $150ish can yield some mighty fine headphone amps. I’ve turned several friends onto a combo of Aune X1s and Sennheiser 58x. It’s a nice pairing, a good price point and enough of a night-and-day difference from what most people usually listen to that it can be a jarring experience. For many people it’s probably as much (if not more) than they’d ever want to invest in a headphone setup. North of something like that combo, incremental improvements start getting silly-expensive. It’s not all highway robbery—you’re fighting economics at that point. I look at that Uber high-end gear less like AV equipment and more like precision scientific instruments. Focal Utopias list for $4k, and are capable of indescribable detail retrieval and imaging. The “secret sauce” is a beryllium driver, which combines extreme rigidity with light mass, making it possible to move air precisely with less distortion. Some factors contributing to the high cost of the Utopias include the cost of beryllium itself, the hazards of working with it, R&D and engineering costs to design world-leading performance, lower sales volumes than typical consumer headphones and the simple fact that some people will pay that asking price to have “the best.” Things get far more absurd in the world of loudspeakers. There’s a place in Scottsdale, AZ (localish to me) that has something like $800k/pr speakers in their showroom. They describe gear at that level as like Formula One level gear. They don’t build that stuff expecting to sell any—they build it to discover what works, and to showcase their company name. Technological advances trickle down into consumer-grade stuff that actually pays the bills. Anyway, I’m worried this is getting too long, so I’ll wrap up. Point is, that unimaginably expensive gear is out there and it’s really something to behold. Anyone can tell there’s something special going on with the audio quality. Before I close, I also wanted to comment on salespeople and blind testing in stores. A true double-blind test is a good method for discovering true, repeatable differences between two audio chains. As you pointed out, it’s not really a practical thing to do in stores. It’s also not easy to do well. It's a fact that our listening memory sucks. Even A-Bing the same track back to back is likely to reveal different things to you. Noticing a thing on listen B doesn’t mean it wasn’t the same on listen A—you just may not have noticed it. Different recordings may be more or less useful for conveying repeatable differences, critical listening skills take practice and fatigue plays a role in what you’ll notice. Some salespeople will prey on poor listening memory with tricks like “louder is better.” When I auditioned my loudspeakers way back when, I brought my own music and took my own notes. I listened to dozens of systems over probably hundreds of hours to learn what was repeatably different and what I liked vs. what I may have imagined. Sorry for the very long read. I wanted to at least give a sense of how much effort I put into figuring out whether audiophile gear was all BS before I decided it was not.

Feb 18, 2019

Feb 18, 2019

SpeleoFoolYo thanks for the thoughtful reply. Not sure if sarcastic when you say I'm polite lol. A lot of the time audio enthusiast fnd me rude due to being so controversial or different to their views and upfront. I really mean it when I said I'm an engineer. I also try to look at sound completely objectively/scientifically. I find even personal preferences can be predicted though science. The tricky part with sound is it is ultimately interpreted by the brain so a lot of physchological factors, bias, and placebo can occur. Also with blind testing it does not represent the usual listening conditions. Many people try crank the volume up much louder in an attempt to hear differences. Also you are no longer enjoying music since you need 100% concentration to listen out to the faintest differences such as the decay of a cymbal. Lastly differences doesn't mean better, this is something I try tell audiophiles often. Just look at the loudness war. Average person loves it due to the reduced amplitude difference between softest and loudest sounds hence causing perception of 'more detail'. Also the clipping and compression reduces potential fatigue from loud transients/bursts. Same as how tube amp causes more distortion yet some if not most audio enthusiasts love it. Also louder is sometimes better, depending on the frequency response of the audio gear. have a look at the Equal loudness contours and you'll see why. In summary fuller bass and highs. Regarding technology, I find technology means nothing. I had an aluminium coated driver Sony mdr1A headphone, nearly sounded good but big 9khz peak ruined it. My Sony mdrzx600 which cost $50 sounded better. Frequency response is the most important aspect of good sound. Also look at all the earphones where manufacturers are stuffing millions of BAs into them without a thought on how they would sound, more is better they think. With multiple BA driver tech they should've been able to exactly replicate the Harman curve but they haven't (except for the recent Moondrop iems). Price and new tech doesn't necessarily mean better sound. Good frequency response, low THD and noise, good impulse response, and good CSD plot showing transient response with minimal ringing/resonance indicates good sound. Frankly I have yet to see anyone know how to read frequency response curves properly, nor do most people know how to read the other graphs/plots.

Feb 18, 2019

Feb 18, 2019

ShowpanI really liked this discussion. I also agree with the “good enough” is based on someone’s personal opinion. I already had a lot of equipment and liked a lot of my stuff but was not actually satisfied until I got the missing piece of the puzzle. I had a HDV 820 DAC/AMP and flagship sennheisers and flagship Fostex, but it wasn’t until I used the Chord Hugo 2 as a DAC that I was blown away by the sound, and finally satisfied, that was the point where I knew it was finally good enough for me. But after hearing the focal Utopias I know there is better gear than what I have, there is a difference. and i’m Very curious to hear the STAX L700 and SR009S, because I hear the SR-009S is better than the utopia. And yes, upgrading cables does make a difference, but should generally be done as a last step because it is one of the least significant upgrades.

Feb 18, 2019

Feb 19, 2019

ShowpanNo, the politeness comment was genuine. I guess when you get a couple engineers together you can focus on the problem at hand instead of descending into personal attacks. ;-) Everything you've pointed out here is useful advice for people to check themselves against getting suckered into marketing hype. Loudness wars, placebo effect, personal biases, etc. all color both our expectations and our perceptions. Perhaps the best we can do is go forth with eyes (and ears) wide open, knowing we're fooling ourselves. :-) I also agree that technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Implementation matters. DAC chips seem to be a good example of this. It's easy to become enamored with specific chips, but take a trip to https://www.audiosciencereview.com/ and you'll find wildly varying objectively-measured performance among different models that use the same chips. I highly recommend that site, BTW. The flip-side of focusing too heavily on measurements is that: (a) they are sometimes inconsistently performed (e.g., THD%), and (b) it's just as easy to fall victim to chasing numbers as it is to get suckered in by marketing hype or sales floor trickery. :-) IOW, don't pay for specs you can't hear. Personally I'm happiest when I can find correlation between measurements or hard data and my own subjective experiences. More often than not, quality measurements aren't available, in which case I can only rely on my own analyses (polite term for my own biases, or what I think I know). For example, Focal's beryllium falls into this category. I can tell you that subjectively those headphones are so strikingly clear that it's obvious that something special is going on. And I can accept that the combination of light mass and rigidity seems like it would contribute to more controlled mechanical action / more precise air movement, and that could explain the uncanny clarity I hear. Is that the truth? Maybe, but I believe it, knowing that an element of personal faith is involved in that belief. Good enough. After all, listening to music ought to be about an emotional experience when all is said and done. You can't spend all of your time listening critically. It takes practice, and the higher up the quality chain you go, the more difficult and exhausting it becomes. I'm happy to say that I've reached the point in my home system where the difficulty in confidently pinpointing additional incremental gains is so high that those gains aren't really worth investing in. I'm within my own margin of error at detecting perfection, which I think means I've won. :-)

Feb 19, 2019

Feb 19, 2019

HaVoCTzuThanks. Glad you've enjoyed the discussion. I've not heard the SR009S, but I own the STAX L700 (and the STAX SRM-727II energizer, unmodified). The L700s deliver that same "clarity unto infinity" as the Utopias. After much back and forth, I very narrowly prefer the Utopias. I'm tempted to say the Stax might edge out the Utopias in clarity and imaging, but I ultimately decided that was too close to call. The Utopias sound ever so slightly more natural to me, which is both a nitpick and probably personal preference. However, the one area in which the Utopias seem to clearly win is bass production. The Focals just have a better bottom end, which feels like a more completely well-rounded presentation to me. Another major plus for the Utopias is that I can drive them (and they sound awesome) out of my AK380, which means I can take a serious reference sound out of the house with me. I brought that combo with me to go audition HiFi systems with a buddy of mine who was getting into the hobby and had a grand time using it to point out weak points in the 2-channel systems we were listening to. Not that I'm giving up my Stax any time soon. They sit in my own HiFi setup under a glass bell jar to protect them from dust and to give them that "museum piece" treatment they deserve. :-)

Feb 19, 2019

Feb 19, 2019

SpeleoFoolI agree that when technology is implemented PROPERLY it can be very beneficial. I trust that the focal beryllium is very light, but you could have beryllium drivers that are heavier than your standard polymer drivers. Depends on how much beryllium they use and the quality of beryllium. Ultimatelyess if you're happy then that's all that matters. Everything we do in life all points to happiness. I find it also very important to be content with what we have. Kind of like the never ending cycle of unhappiness, rural/agricultural families seem like they live an easy going, simple, harmonious life to the common person. On the other hand the rural family, they wish they had the money common subuarban people have and enjoy the technology and other granduers of a modern life. Then again, I always question when should we be content. When is enough enough, and when is it not enough. Should we just settle for sub par earbuds or go for $$$$ headphones. And should $$$$ audio gear have some objective performance standard? Or should we just ignore performance and take in the fact that some people are really happy they have a $$$$ headphone which they think perform better than others purely because their brains equate price with performance. Sometimes they do sound bad, sometimes they don't, but is it worth breaking these people's happiness and saying it is crap even when measurements prove this? Kind of like someone obese, should we tell them they're unhealthy and overweight or let them enjoy the food which they love sooo much and praise their bodies (just like the crazy modern trend of fat is beautiful). That's why i'm so intrigued and a big believer of the diffuse field curve and especially the Harman curve. There must be objectivity in sound, just like everything else in life. Even love is not just love. Many senses, chemicals, and biological interactions take place unconsciously when one becomes attracted to another. Just like majority of humans find standing more exhausting than sitting, and sitting more exhausting than sleeping. I'm really into psychology at the moment. Going through some tough times, so like a typical engineer I thought I might learn some psychology to help me understand and work through my problems lol. Learning about sound science has also kept my mind at bay. If you're interested I suggest you check out emotional intelligence by Daniel Goleman. If you liked the book I suggest you read another book of his called social intelligence. Great books for the common person who wants a bit of knowledge on psychology and neuroscience. You'll find that even emotions is not all irrationality, a lot boils down to evolution and the environment/experiences we had growing up.

(Edited)

Feb 19, 2019

Feb 19, 2019

Showpan"Don't fall for 'audiophile' elitist bullcrap. Spotify premium highest quality will do. You will not be able to discern the 24bit 320kbps 48khz Spotify songs from lossless. It has been proven that you can't hear the difference between 16 and 24bit so don't even worry about higher bit rates haha. Anyone who says otherwise is either a god or did not do a blind test. " ^^^ All of the "stuides" concluding that human's can't hear a difference between 320 kbps compression and CD-quality (16-bit/44.1 kHz) are flawed. Since I'm also a big Craft Beer fan, I like to think of it as being analogous to "randomly surveying" 1000 Major League Baseball fans outside the stadium, having them blind taste-test some Craft-y all-grain Pilsner against an adjunct-y BMC offering, and if/when the results don't conclude a "statistically significant percentage of people could taste the difference," proclaiming and publishing that human being's CAN'T taste the difference. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Human's "aren't capable of it". Meanwhile, the official judges at The Great American Beer Festival (or the 1000's of patrons that have traveled from out-of-state to partake) nail the "test" with ease. It's not a debate. Human beings are very capable of tasting the difference between an all-grain "craft" pilsner and a BMC beer made with cheaper extracts. The fact that "random" people (NOT craft beer fans, people that spend their free time reading craft beer reviews, posting on BeerAdvocate's forums, traveling far-and-wide to visit distant breweries and attend beer festivals, etc) can fail the "test," and someone can turn a camera on and film them do it and post it to the internet, doesn't prove that all human's can't. Same thing with audio. Any study done that targets self-identified audiophiles, people who spend their free time either listening to music or reading about gear/equipment on the internet, people that *know* the easy/simple "tells" that allow you to readily hear the difference (the "decay" in the way a cymbal/high-hat rings around in the room that it was played in, well after the initial *strike*), can pass the "test" and correctly identify the CD quality (or higher) bitrate over the lossy MP3/AAC/whatever with very high statistical significance, if the test is administered using good gear and with good source material.

(Edited)

Feb 19, 2019

A community member

Apr 16, 2019

ShowpanThought this was an "audio/stereo" forum friend? After reading your little diatribe,... I'm not certain whether I should take lithium, read Satre or watch some Robin Williams movies!

Apr 16, 2019

Vote

Apr 16, 2019

Sorry was i not discussing audio? Or did you get offended because i am telling people that they can get the best audio quality without having to spend exuberant amounts of money on audio gear that makes no audible difference?

Apr 16, 2019

Vote

May 21, 2019

ShowpanSee, you almost had something there. You change that word "best" to "good" and I'm right there with you. This is all *very* law-of-diminishing-returns-y, and a good quality 320 kbps rip played through good quality affordable speakers or headphones (my EMP Tek r5Bi's or my Sennheiser HD-6XX's, for example) can/does sound *really* good. But when you say "best" you indicate that there is no improvement gained AT ALL by going further; you deny that you law of diminishing returns is real. And that's BS, because my FLAC rips and my Audeze headphones *do* sound a little bit better than my MP3s and my HD-6XX's....

May 21, 2019

Vote

May 23, 2019

psuKingerPIdk where I said good but I am firm that you can get the best audio quality from 320. Audeze tuning is horrible, you wouldn't be able to distinguish any hi-res songs with its lack of highs. Hd6xx isn't any better or worse given the excess upper bass and lack of sub-bass. Go and do at least 20+ ABX blind test repetitions comparing lossless to let's say 320 ogg (Spotify highest quality) then tell me how much you got right. Use your most expensive headphone or speaker for maximum dissapointment at the end. You won't be able to tell the diffetence, let alone decide which one sounds better. Diminishing returns does exist, so does 'no return.' A lot of high end gear is no return, not even diminishing returns.

(Edited)

May 23, 2019

Vote

May 23, 2019

ShowpanI assure you that I stand firm on my end as well; I can ACE that ABX test. I'm telling you that I *have* taken it that test. I *have* aced that test. I've administered that test on others, including my wife (who doesn't care AT ALL about high end audio) and watched her ace it. People don't even need that expensive a gear to tell the difference (a $250 Pioneer AVR and a $275 pair of EMP Tek Bookshelves will do). If the question isn't "how much does the things that are missing at 320 kbps affect how much you or I enjoy the music at 320 kbps" but rather "can you physically hear a difference, between 320 kbps and 1411.7 CD of the same master," the way cymbals, strings, etc "echo" and "ring" long after they're played in a real room, and the way that "ring" is shortened with 320 kbps compression, is an easy tell in an ABX comparison; no "elitist", high-end, multi-thousand dollar gear required.

(Edited)

May 23, 2019

Vote

May 24, 2019

psuKingerOk what was your percentage you got correct and the P value? You and your wife must be the 1 in 10 million with a golden ear, or you are talking nonsense. Also search up "presbycusis" and ask yourself how old you are. If you did the NPR test with the 6 songs that is not valid, apparently it is also flawed as it isn't volume matched. Flip a coin 6 times, you can get heads 6 out of 6 times. Flip it infinite times, it will approach 50% chance of heads and 50% tails.

May 24, 2019

Vote

May 24, 2019

ShowpanWe're not 1-in-10 million. All of the "internet shtuff" about how people CAN'T hear the difference is all nonsense. It's done by people that don't know how to conduct a proper test, and/or don't know how to interpret their results, and/or fail to provide proper context. If *you* can't hear a difference? That's fine. I believe you. I have no reason to doubt you. I can. And so can my wife. And my father. And friends. Blind, using speakers, a Chromecast Audio (so someone can work the Roon or Plex App from their phone or tablet without the other seeing what file is being played), and a playlist built with files that are ripped from one CD disc; one rip done using lossless FLAC, the other a 320 kbps compressed rip... that way their's no difference in terms of the "original master" or the volume/levels. EDIT/UPDATE - I reread your entire first post, and the one thing you said that I agree with THE MOST is: "The thing that makes the biggest difference beside source is the headphone/earphone/speaker so invest in a good sounding one. " You followed that up with some more statements that I don't necessarily agree with, and I mostly find to be bad advice: "Also remember higher price doesn't equal better sound, there's a study which actually proves that higher price = worse sound." In my experience, price relates very strongly to performance as you move from $5 to $50 to $500. From $500 to $5000, what you've said here can (but is certainly not "always") true. I don't own (and likely never will own) anything much beyond that, but from the things I read and podcasts I listen to, the phenomena you've described here is *most often* true for things well beyond $5000, which has "no impact or relevance" to most people, including myself, that have no intention of ever buying absurd car-priced gear that I refer to more as "art pieces" than audio equipment. My main point/rebuttel to your original post, as someone who owns LOTS of different ~$500ish (in terms of orders of magnitude) gear that I have compared extensively against LOTS of different ~$50ish and ~$5ish dollar gear, and one living room setup that's along the lines of ~$5000ish, with no intention of ever owning anything that approaches that ~$50,000 venue: 1) Disc space is dirt-cheap in 2019, in a way that it never was in 1999 when we were all relying on compression so we could have a reasonably sized collection available to us digitally, for all the conveniences that digital files offer. 2) CDs *rarely* cost any more than a $1 or $2 more upcharge when compared to buying the album as MP3s or AACs or whatever... and when you buy them from somewhere like Amazon they often come with something like a 256 kbps VBR digital autorip, for convenience... 3) Qobuz "CD-quality" costs $80 a year more than your average "$10 per month" streaming-subscription-of-your-choice... As someone that owns multiple different $500ish rigs, one "headphone rig" that's probably halfway-ish between that $500-ish-land and $5000-ish-land, and one legitimate $5000 stereo 2.1 setup in my living room, with all of THAT "skin in the game" hardware-wise (which you noted above, and I agree with, is where you get best bang-for-your-buck), it seems to me to be a foolish place to pinch a penny to not spend a $1 or $2 more for CDs rather than digitally compressed albums, and/or $6.67-a-month for lossless streaming, even if you're skeptical about any audible improvements (as I often am when it comes to certain types of music, like modern hard rock). I'm telling you *I CAN AND DO* hear the difference, with some types of music, in a blind test, and furthermore, I'd encourage anyone else who is into this hobby to BUY SOME CDS AND FIND OUT FOR THEMSELVES. Simple as that.

(Edited)

May 24, 2019

A community member

Jun 6, 2019

psuKingerAgreed! Enough now!....Go and live your lives for bejesus sakes!

Jun 6, 2019

Vote

View Full Discussion

LostnAmerica

Sound Signature of the Grell Project.

Wondering what type of sound signature the Drop Grell project headphones will have or trying to attain. Any update would be appreciated.

Apr 8, 2024

Questions

Fabulous

Looking for a gaming/content audio setup

Hello! I'm looking for recommendations on audio setups. I'd be planning on using it mostly for gaming. Preferably I'd like a pair of large closed back headphones since I have a big head and jaw. I'd also like to hear myself through my mic with mic monitoring. As far as budget goes, I don't really have one. But under 600$ would be nice. I can go higher if needed. The audio setup would be connected to a high performance PC. Thank you in advance for any recommendations!

Apr 4, 2024

Questions

1plsd

$10 Drop Coupon Email not sent?

Trying to buy some gear off Drop for the first time. I was told I would receive an email with a welcome to drop $10 off promo. I never received that email. Drop was able to send me emails for my login token and email for Password update. But for some reason the $10 off coupon was never sent to me.

Mar 31, 2024

Questions

Vote

Mr.Hazmat

What would be a good portable Dac/Amp to use with my HD6xx and Sony Xperia 1 V cell phone?

I am new to this hobby. I purchased a HD6XX and plan to use it with my Sony Xperia 1 V cell phone, that has a 3.5mm jack. I was wondering if I needed a portable dac/amp or just a portable amp and if so what would one recommend? Any assistance one could provide, would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Haz

Mar 7, 2024

Questions

JonathanWB

Invest in Balancing my HD6xx headphones?

Hi... I'm a songwriter/producer. I have Drop Senn HD6xx HPs. I just bought a Topping L30 II SE HP amp to enhance my monitoring. It honestly sounds pretty good. The audio interface I'm using (an Audient iD22) has balanced outs. For those of you who've listened to the HD6xx using balanced amps and cables, do you think I should invest in that kind of setup to take advantage of the Senns potential?

Feb 22, 2024

Questions

Vote

adiaz7531

B1 Bluetooth Music Receiver

Hello! Has the AudioEngine B1 Bluetooth Music Receiver ever been available here as a Drop?

Feb 15, 2024