Sol Republic Tracks? - Page 5

 

Enjoy :)

 

You're hilarious. All opinions are subjective. Your opinions are thus subjective. Thus all your opinionated posts are subjective, and only hold truth for you. In other words, they're all meaningless.

That's called a Relativist Fallacy, by the way.

 

Oh, and you committed Strawman's fallacy as well when you completely ignored the fact that you haven't heard the HD's, and thus cannot give any accurate reviews on them. Whoops, you failed on burden of proof! 

 

Nice composition fallacies as well. 

 

Please don't argue with a competition level debater when your logic is so flawed.

 

Have a good day.

 

Please don't go! It's only just getting fun!

 

On another note, the whole point was to recommend a stylish pair of cans that are bass heavy to snoopy. Alondite, stop spinning things out of proportion, thanks.

Edited by whysochangry - 8/31/12 at 10:28pm

 

LOL, it's not worth my time any longer.  I'll let him enjoy his GR07s (which are an amazing IEM from what I've read :)).  I'll post further impressions of the Ultra after (like I said in the UE900 thread) they burn in for at least a full day and the new toy effect wares off completely. 

 

Great! Think you can shoot me a PM when you finish? I'm interested in how the mids sound now.

 

I'll be posting in this thread with impressions.  My full review will be posted on the blog I'm writing for (ETA: 1-2 weeks time). 

Which blog do you write for?

 

EDIT: He answered with PM, thanks, tinyman

Edited by whysochangry - 8/31/12 at 10:48pm

That why opinions are meaningless. The SOLs are objectively bass-heavy with low treble response and a notched out midrange. Look at the measurements. That's not my opinion, that's my observation. Two very different things. I'd think you'd know that being a competitive debater. That's cute, by the way. I'm currently pioneering bi-concentric power training using an ACES isokinetic dynamometer for my doctoral dissertation in biomechanical skill analysis. See, I'm involved in irrelevant things that mean a lot to me but nothing to you too. Care to keep comparing?

Since your first "point" was flawed, your accusation of the relativist fallacy holds no meaning. Let me explain a little more:

Objective: The SOL has accentuated bass, reduced treble, and a notch cut out of the midrange. Can be proven factual by empirical data.
Subjective: The SOL has bloated bass, an unnatural midrange and no treble. Perception of objective qualities.

Do you see the difference? Yes, I did state my opinion of the SOL, but did not use it as a basis for argument, thus did not commit the relativist fallacy. (And there's your straw man!)

I never claimed to know what the HDs sounded like. I said that I could make an educated guess (and I'd bet my AD900s that they'd be pretty close to my expectations), based on the company's other products, and other consumer-oriented products that are given the HD labeling. Frankly, I haven't cared for any SOL product I've ever heard, so I'm not interested in hearing the HD. Once again, I merely voiced skepticism, and did not say that they are 100% guaranteed to sound bad. I was using my own observations to come to a conclusion. Is that not sound reasoning?

Oh, your accusation of the composition fallacy is also backwards. What you were looking for was the fallacy of division, which I did willingly commit and don't care ;)

I falliciously reasoned that the HD would sound bad because the rest of SOLs products sound bad. If I had committed the composition fallacy it would be that all of SOLs products sound bad because the HD sounds bad. That's not the case. 

Anywho, I've nothing else of any meaning to contribute to this thread, so I won't be returning.

The the OP, good luck in your audio pursuits. I hope you enjoy whatever you decide to buy.
 

FR graph doesn't always = what the headphone will sound like. It gives a good distinction, but won't prove a headphone will sound like X. It can confirm subjective findings though. Just can't prove them on its own.

It does give a good indication of how something might sounds, but it isn't an in concrete rep of what it actually will sound like. The aggressive treble you stated as an example. What you thought was aggression on the SR60 graph might have been something else in the real world setting. Reading an FR graph is still not easy, we still don't know everything. We know how different sounds come about most of the time. However, there are other ways to create the same type of sound. Sometimes different properties of sound have a same general shape and size to them (while other occurances may differ as well). There is no guaranteeing that you're looking at an orange at a distance when it could be a small grapefruit.

If you look at a PFE232 graph, you'd think the treble was spiked and hard and aggressive. It's actually soft and more reserved to many people's ears.

EDIT:

I do want to make a statement about the objective vs subjective. They both try to do the same way. They both try to draw a graph. Your "objective" statements were as subjective as your subjective ones. We still try to do the same thing though. We try to draw an FR graph with our words and what we hear. We don't hear tones, so the FR graph is a little harder to do. We listen to music. Music has properties that relate to the FR in different ways. Each property we list helps the reader realize what we're talking about in relation to the FR graph (with respect to our ears). Then the magnitude is normally shown as a numerical word (good, fair, strong, weak, present, etc) to give an idea with the depth or amount of the property we hear. Both of these together give readers and idea of what frequency range we talk about + the relative amount it will be boosted or reduced. Some examples below, of your objective and subjective statements (which really were all subjective):

• Bloated is not a specific shape. It can actually have lots of forms. Bloated normally comes for the boost of the lower bass or even the higher mid-bass. It's a bump somewhere that takes away from any other bass property (like punch, texture, and impact) by creating too much quantity.
• No treble. This can mean a few things (it's not specific enough). It could mean that the higher highs are lacking. You end up with a lack of sparkle and extention to the point where they are so recessed they rarely show up. It could also mean a loss of treble as a whole. No snaps can be heard, and you can forget about extension.
• Accenuated bass. This is subjective as well as your ear should also pick this up in the real world. If not, there is something up with the objective data being used. It means some part of the bass spectrum has been raised. Once again, like the no treble form, it isn't specific enough. It's as bad as saying bloated bass or no treble. It isn't specific enough. I find it shameful you'd call this objective.
• Reduced treble. This is as bad as no treble. It gives no details on what area of the treble (like the no treble). It's the same as no treble to a lesser extent.
• Notch cut out of midrange. The funny thing about our ears is that we won't hear this notch unless we listen to an FR sweep. So this can't come up in subjective data, ever. It is objective though. But will only come up 100% if we listen to an FR sweep. In natural music, the notch will just end up creating a recessed sound that may create artificial sound stage. The off tones will make up for the notch and "hide" it.

You had one statement that was objective. Notch. That's the only thing that could be proved objectively. I'll give you that. However, it doesn't create recessed vocals as you say. It creates a lush sound to them taking away from the main pitch but also keeping the energy (I made my own notch at 1k with EQ; notched down about 6 dB).

EDIT:

A nice teaser pic

Edited by tinyman392 - 9/1/12 at 10:07pm

That's strange. I was under the impression that we were debating a point, and not pioneering bi-cocentric power. Very irrelevant indeed. 

 

 

 

Well now! I had no idea how you could've written the below words at all! Perhaps someone used mind control on you?

 

 

Hmm.... What's next?

 

 

 

Well now! I could've sworn you based all of your arguments up until the end on your opinion of the Tracks! That would indeed be composition fallacy. You assumed that all SOL products are bad because of your experience with the Tracks. A forewarning, however. You cannot base a previous argument already made of information given in the future- thus you cannot say that you were basing your argument off your experience with the amps or the ultras, as your previous point was made before the ultras were released or that information (that you were actually basing it off the amps as well) was given. We call that a "moving target." 

 

So... what have we learned? Alondite has dropped burden of proof, commited fallacy of composition (and if denied, still admitted to fallacy of division), and also made untrue statements that are shown to be untrue by his own words. Ballot, myself.

 

 

Whoa whoa whoa guys, chill out. I only asked for a comparo of the Tracks HD and the M50's lol. Thanks guys for all your inputs but no need to fight about it

 

Well put! The exact thoughts of both tinyman's and myself. However, it seems we were trolled by Alondite. Did you go through with your purchase? 

Not just yet, but I will soon :D

 

I hope you like them as much as we did!

Thanks!