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.
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.
A nice teaser pic
What MP3 player do you guys use?