or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › V-MODA M-100: Discussion/Feedback, Reviews, Pics, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

V-MODA M-100: Discussion/Feedback, Reviews, Pics, etc. - Page 1208

post #18106 of 22939
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

I never said anything about the product launch. XD


We've only seen 1 photo of the XS so far and it was "Photoshopped."

LOL...  How are we certain it was photoshopped? 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/695104/v-moda-xs-v-moda-m-80s-upgraded-new-v-moda-product-leaked-pictures-and-more

Oh how about that, a new photo.



It's really easy to see it's been altered.

Edited by miceblue - 1/10/14 at 8:18pm
post #18107 of 22939
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post


http://www.head-fi.org/t/695104/v-moda-xs-v-moda-m-80s-upgraded-new-v-moda-product-leaked-pictures-and-more

Oh how about that, a new photo.



It's really easy to see it's been altered.

OK, let me be more specific...  When people say Photoshop, it tends to mean that the medium in question is fake...  In this case, the XS is stated to be photoshopped, EG, a digital alteration of some other product (if this were done, it'd most likely be using an M-80 base).  So I ask, is the XS in the picture photohsopped?  Yes, the picture is edited using Photoshop, but I'll even go further and ask if the girl in the picture wearing the XS is photoshopped.  In other words, are the headphones in the picture the actual thing (or are they a digital alteration of another headphone, the M-80)? 

 

Doing a picture like that (above, first) is simple, you need a green screen and three snaps in the appropriate positions.  It's actually quite artisticly done using 3 real pictures intelligently cropped out and pasted one on top of one another...  That isn't a photoshopped image in my book.  It's a digitally altered one, but photoshopped generally means the image in question (or images) are fake (in this case, the girl is real, the headphones are real).

 

In the second picture, that's a picture, filtered to B&W (not Photoshop, cameras can do this) with a logo and words added.  The second one can be done with the model posing with a wide aperture.  The second one is an actual photograph (with words and a logo added to it).  This is no different than adding a watermark to an image. 

 

If you feel that any image that has any digital alteration is "photoshopped" or deemed to be so, then any picture that comes out of your iPhone photoshopped (even if you didn't edit it), or even my camera, I've got it set to JPEG right now...  That's a digital alteration. 


Edited by tinyman392 - 1/10/14 at 8:46pm
post #18108 of 22939
XD
I thought "photoshopped" in today's jargon just meant altered using Photoshop.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=photoshopped
Quote:
1. photoshopped
When a photo has been digitally edited using photoshop.
post #18109 of 22939
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

XD
I thought "photoshopped" in today's jargon just meant altered using Photoshop.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=photoshopped

 

There is a lot of alterations using Photoshop that wouldn't be considered Photoshopped (contrast, brightness, etc.).  It tends to follow the idea that the image was digitally manipulated using Photoshop, not just altered.  When you manipulate an image, you create the illusion that some is that isn't, or something isn't that is.  Like adding something to a given photo that wasn't there before, or deleting.  I can see how the first image can be called Photoshopped (although I personally wouldn't say that), but definitely not the second. 

 

Photoshopping (and photo manipulation) normally follow the idea of deceiving or creating an illusion (illusion explained above).  I don't see the above images doing that. 

 

BTW, every image I've ever put into a review has gone through editing in Photoshop (brightness, contrast, color balance, noise, etc; although noise could be considered Photoshop by some)...  That doesn't mean the images are Photoshopped, the picture isn't deceptive. 


Edited by tinyman392 - 1/10/14 at 9:18pm
post #18110 of 22939
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post
 

 

  1. The XL pads on the M-100 are more comfortable simply due to the size.  They aren't much larger in terms of height and width, the reason is the depth, what the main complaint with the M-100 pads were.  They are deeper so the metal driver covers don't press up against your ear, which became intolerable for some.  I should also mention that they are a little hotter to wear as well over time.  Definitely a drawback for the summer months, something that hasn't been brought up because most people in the US are freezing their nips off in the cool front we all just got hit with XD  As for sound changes, the XL pads do increment the v-shape of the M-100 (which already have a slight v-shape).  Bass depth is improved at the cost of the lower midrange being drowned out further; the bass could also be a tad large at times too.  The upper mids get perceivably stronger and sweeter and vocal dynamics increase as well.  I feel that the use of XL pads will create a larger v-shape, but the sonic differences cancel each other out.  You get improvements here and there, but lose out in other areas.  
  2. V-Moda's next release looks to be the V-Moda XS, no confirmation on this yet though.  It's not a new flagship, it's still a little too early to do that IMO, rather it's an improvement on their previous successful HiFi phone, the M-80.  They are supposed to use the same M-80 design and size, but add in ClickFold technology so they can be even more portable.  No word on release dates or sonic improvements though (I'd hope for sonic improvements though) or even anything else for the matter (lots of people found them uncomfortable).  We'll find out more information as they prepare to release them I guess.

 

About the XL pads you said that its deeper but my problem is that i dont like the diamond shape of the original pad as it cuts into or rather onto me upper ear lobe. Will the more rounder looking XL pads help in that regard ??? Actually how much wider/broader/taller is it ?

post #18111 of 22939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerryberry View Post
 

 

About the XL pads you said that its deeper but my problem is that i dont like the diamond shape of the original pad as it cuts into or rather onto me upper ear lobe. Will the more rounder looking XL pads help in that regard ??? Actually how much wider/broader/taller is it ?

 

It's actually wider as well as deeper...  I didn't notice it before, but it does seem to be about 5 mm wider than the non-XL pad (internal radius).  The height seems the same though (internal radius).  Note that my non-XL pads have been used for a couple hundred hours (probably more).  As for depth, the XL pad is about 6-7 mm deeper, note, my non-XL pads are worn, so they may be a couple mm thinner than a new one. 

post #18112 of 22939

Off topic i know but these are gonna be released at the end of the month APPARENTLY:) 

 

 

i started a Sennheiser HD 6,7 & 8 DJ Appreciation thread.:gs1000smile:

 

 http://www.head-fi.org/t/699827/sennheiser-hd-6-7-8-dj-appreciation-thread-opinions-reviews-feedback-pics-discussions-etc


Edited by Jerryberry - 1/11/14 at 3:13pm
post #18113 of 22939
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post
 

 

There is a lot of alterations using Photoshop that wouldn't be considered Photoshopped (contrast, brightness, etc.).  It tends to follow the idea that the image was digitally manipulated using Photoshop, not just altered.  When you manipulate an image, you create the illusion that some is that isn't, or something isn't that is.  Like adding something to a given photo that wasn't there before, or deleting.  I can see how the first image can be called Photoshopped (although I personally wouldn't say that), but definitely not the second. 

 

Photoshopping (and photo manipulation) normally follow the idea of deceiving or creating an illusion (illusion explained above).  I don't see the above images doing that. 

 

BTW, every image I've ever put into a review has gone through editing in Photoshop (brightness, contrast, color balance, noise, etc; although noise could be considered Photoshop by some)...  That doesn't mean the images are Photoshopped, the picture isn't deceptive. 

 

tinyman, you sure have put a lot of thought into the nuances of labeling digital manipulation... :p By your very own terms, however, the second image is still clearly "Photoshopped." Not with regards to the saturation or physical reality of the subjects, but due to the quite blatant cloning out of the XS's CliqFold hinge (arguably that headphone's defining feature vs its predecessor). One can only assume Val didn't want to let the cat entirely out of the bag at the time of that image's release.

post #18114 of 22939
Quote:
Originally Posted by epithetless View Post
 

 

tinyman, you sure have put a lot of thought into the nuances of labeling digital manipulation... :p By your very own terms, however, the second image is still clearly "Photoshopped." Not with regards to the saturation or physical reality of the subjects, but due to the quite blatant cloning out of the XS's CliqFold hinge (arguably that headphone's defining feature vs its predecessor). One can only assume Val didn't want to let the cat entirely out of the bag at the time of that image's release.

 

You say the Cliqfold hinge was cloned in the image?  I actually went ahead and ran FotoForensics (http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=d2a1fb4bc9d45dda42ef5d9225e5954247c22280.59461) to see if the second image was edited...  Um...  I'm not seeing much manipulation here.  The white lines follow the contrast changes in the image itself.  You can tell that the text to the left side is added in due to the chronic squaring of the pixels in that area, but if you look at the image of the girl herself, no such big "squares" are present.  The lines drawn by the algorithm are due to the contrast changes in the picture (black next to white).  Sorry, I don't see it...  Neither did this analysis.  Of course if you ran your own tests, please show ;)  Also a few notes from the FotoForensics website about why things feel extra contrast in the test:

 

Quote:
  •  JPEG uses the YUV color space. High contrast colors in the same grid, such as black and white, orange and blue, or green and purple (opposite ends of the YUV color space), will usually generate higher ELA values than similar colors in the same grid.
  • With Photoshop, the simple act of saving the picture can auto-sharpen textures and edges, creating a higher error level potential. This artifact does not identify intentional modification; it identifies that an Adobe product was used. (Remember: if someone needs to download a picture from their camera or resize a picture for the web, they are just as likely to reach for Photoshop as they are to use any other tool.) Technically, ELA detects a modification because Adobe automatically performed a modification, but the modification was not necessarily intentional by the user.

 

The second bullet would state that the image was saved using Photoshop, but no actual manipulation was done past the text added in... 

 

If you look at the first image (http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=4ddecb89d0424458671f8b5a6bd9d33eb23e123e.67915), you can tell that they stacked three images together as all three of those images show that squaring on the edges in the algorithm...  That means all three images were placed on on top of another into a common background.  EG, that one was digitally manipulated since the images were either cropped out of other images, or were cropped themselves.  However, nothing major pops out still (something this big would have the same effect as adding the letters in which would be more drastic in the ELA).  I don't think the images were digitally altered in this other than the cropping that was done.  Then again, it could also be a result of JPEG compression.

 

A real strong photoshop can be shown with this image here: http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=daece695a5f6bc97e06dc8561eea79457560faff.17053 Look at the lips of the ELA, that is something that would be edited in (the girl also appears to be cropped out of a previous image as well if you look at the edges around her hair).  An image that is Photoshopped pops out like a sore thumb... 

 

EDIT: to see ELA, hover your cursor over the image on the links.


Edited by tinyman392 - 1/11/14 at 5:13pm
post #18115 of 22939
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post
 

 

You say the Cliqfold hinge was cloned in the image?  I actually went ahead and ran FotoForensics (http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=d2a1fb4bc9d45dda42ef5d9225e5954247c22280.59461) to see if the second image was edited...  Um...  I'm not seeing much manipulation here.  The white lines follow the contrast changes in the image itself.  You can tell that the text to the left side is added in due to the chronic squaring of the pixels in that area, but if you look at the image of the girl herself, no such big "squares" are present.  The lines drawn by the algorithm are due to the contrast changes in the picture (black next to white).  Sorry, I don't see it...  Neither did this analysis.  Of course if you ran your own tests, please show ;)  Also a few notes from the FotoForensics website about why things feel extra contrast in the test:

 

 

The second bullet would state that the image was saved using Photoshop, but no actual manipulation was done past the text added in... 

 

If you look at the first image (http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=4ddecb89d0424458671f8b5a6bd9d33eb23e123e.67915), you can tell that they stacked three images together as all three of those images show that squaring on the edges in the algorithm...  That means all three images were placed on on top of another into a common background.  EG, that one was digitally manipulated since the images were either cropped out of other images, or were cropped themselves.  However, nothing major pops out still (something this big would have the same effect as adding the letters in which would be more drastic in the ELA).  I don't think the images were digitally altered in this other than the cropping that was done.  Then again, it could also be a result of JPEG compression.

 

A real strong photoshop can be shown with this image here: http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=daece695a5f6bc97e06dc8561eea79457560faff.17053 Look at the lips of the ELA, that is something that would be edited in (the girl also appears to be cropped out of a previous image as well if you look at the edges around her hair).  An image that is Photoshopped pops out like a sore thumb... 

 

EDIT: to see ELA, hover your cursor over the image on the links.

 

Yep, I spend time doing loads of forensic tests on random images across the internet... :cool:

 

Let's try a couple other tools: human eyeballs and deductive reasoning. The XS had a CliqFold hinge. The XS in the photo of the windswept model does not. Rather, the area where the hinge -- and its requisite cluster of hex screws -- should be visible is conspicuously smooth (smoother, to my eye, than the rest of the Y-fork). Therefore, either the headphones in the image are not the V-MODA XS...or they have been digitally manipulated from their captured form. I suppose you could argue that a pair of M-80s was used instead of the XS and mislabeled in the caption, but the presence of a right-side cable entry and the perceptible beginnings of a hinge line -- that starts on the left and right of the hinge but strangely disappears in the center -- make that unlikely to my mind. I'm perfectly fine agreeing to disagree in this case, if you prefer. ;)

 

Side note: When you say an image that's Photoshopped sticks out like a sore thumb, I assume you just mean under ELA analysis, right? If a Photoshopped image stands out as obvious to the human eye, then I'd argue it's poorly Photoshopped. If Photoshop was utterly incapable of generating convincingly realistic alterations to photographs, then it wouldn't at all be successful as a professional editing tool.


Edited by epithetless - 1/11/14 at 6:03pm
post #18116 of 22939
Quote:
Originally Posted by epithetless View Post
 

 

Yep, I spend time doing loads of forensic tests on random images across the internet... :cool:

 

Let's try a couple other tools: human eyeballs and deductive reasoning. The XS had a CliqFold hinge. The XS in the photo of the windswept model does not. Rather, the area where the hinge -- and its requisite cluster of hex screws -- should be visible is conspicuously smooth (smoother, to my eye, than the rest of the Y-fork). Therefore, either the headphones in the image are not the V-MODA XS...or they have been digitally manipulated from their captured form. I suppose you could argue that a pair of M-80s was used instead of the XS and mislabeled in the caption, but the presence of a right-side cable entry and the perceptible beginnings of a hinge line -- that starts on the left and right of the hinge but strangely disappears in the center -- make that unlikely to my mind. I'm perfectly fine agreeing to disagree in this case, if you prefer. ;)

 

Side note: When you say an image that's Photoshopped sticks out like a sore thumb, I assume you just mean under ELA analysis, right? If a Photoshopped image stands out as obvious to the human eye, then I'd argue it's poorly Photoshopped. If Photoshop was utterly incapable of generating convincingly realistic alterations to photographs, then it wouldn't at all be successful as a professional editing tool.

 

You are right, the hex screws do appear to be missing...  It does looks like that area of the cup was blurred out or airbrushed or out of focus (latter doesn't seem plausible).

post #18117 of 22939

Nice to see the conversation rediscover momentum, if only to explore the nuances of photoshopping and protoware. It can be difficult to entertain new thoughts on a subject that's been discussed for 1209 pages.


Edited by scrypt - 1/11/14 at 11:54pm
post #18118 of 22939
just out of curiosity what headphones would be an upgrade over the m100s ...I would like the same fun sounding signature with good bass . and comfy over ears..I have the m100s... but Am itchy for an upgrade if there is one ?.
post #18119 of 22939

I would say Focal Spirit Pro or Spirit Classic, a little more substantial (or not, haven't heard any of these yet for myself) perhaps would be Sony MDR-7520 or Shure SRH-1540, and then big steps up might be Fostex...assuming you are strictly speaking "closed circumaural" 

 

I also want to say that my criticism of the XL pads is fading at least a little bit.  I found them thumpy and muddy at first, wishing I could go back to the stock pads (tore them during the swap) despite the dramatically less comfort I experienced with them.  But now I think it has toned down just a bit, and my theory here is that the XL pads do compress a bit over time and lower the air volume between driver and ear, and thus bring the sound a little more back in line.  As an experiment, I press them in with my hands while listening and the sound does improve for the better.  If I can find a halfway point between stock pads and fresh XL pads, I think all will be good.


Edited by Greggo - 1/13/14 at 2:03pm
post #18120 of 22939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerryberry View Post

just out of curiosity what headphones would be an upgrade over the m100s ...I would like the same fun sounding signature with good bass . and comfy over ears..I have the m100s... but Am itchy for an upgrade if there is one ?.


you know buddy, if your looking for sound quality do you really think there is gonna be much of a difference?

 

are you going to be ablt to tell? the sound quality is already really good, i think all your paying for in this price range is a different sound signature.

 

untill you get into summit fi, but i cant tell you how much better that would be either since i have no experience with it.

 

What you could try however is to try out a open pair of headphones, that might satisfy you :)

 

hope i helped

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › V-MODA M-100: Discussion/Feedback, Reviews, Pics, etc.