Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › [New] Philips Fidelio X1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[New] Philips Fidelio X1 - Page 321

post #4801 of 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by waynes world View Post
 

 

"Wish you were here small headed" ;)

I have become uncomfortably numb :D 


Edited by allets - 7/24/14 at 1:02am
post #4802 of 4811

It's been a good run but my X1s are going on sale now. I've chosen to keep the AKG Q701 as I find their presentation and detail more enjoyable. I will miss the build quality of the X1 and the memory foam pads as well as the extreme comfort but it is what it is!

post #4803 of 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonzeanse View Post
 


I'm pretty sure they'd know it's his opinion by virtue of the fact that they said it. That's just a petty conclusion to draw. What's with this push for people to preface things with IMO all the time?

 

Because there are way too many people these days that state their own opinions as if they were scientific facts that can't be argued with. I meant no offense.

post #4804 of 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by benbenkr View Post
 

 

Alright, power to you. You just don't like DH and I respect that, you have your choice to how you want to play your games after all.

 

Just don't go around telling everyone that DH sucks just because it doesn't work for you, because DH works for a lot of people too. 

No, I am not arguing that it doesn't work. I am arguing that what it does to sound is quanitfiably bad. It isn't a mystical subjective loss in fidelity. It is a compressed, flanged, modulated and phased nightmare.

 

Stop spreading misinformation about the borderline usability of DH, you are doing the opposite of helping.

 

What DH does is simulate a room, not a 3D environment, but an actual room. It uses low resource filters, has no temporal awareness and is limited to 5 very clearly audible / distinguishable psychoacoustic emitters.

 

Literally every other low resource HRTF solution is better at "expanding" sound than DH.

 

Telling me to not go around telling people that DH sucks is like telling me to not tell people that are looking into different car options that the PT Cruiser is the honest to goodness worst pick possible in its price bracket.

 

The point of being an audiophile is to look for the best, and truest, possible aural rendition. People that have no interest in actually hearing good sound shouldn't be throwing money at hardware if their are going to wind up using software that defeats the entire purpose of good hardware. Likewise, people who have never heard that there are better options than, say, Dolby Headphones will, in their ignorance, not try better solutions. It is not because consumers prefer Dolby Headphone that Dolby Headphone is more popular, it is because Dolby Headphone is much more heavily marketed and has ultra low resource requirements allowing hardware manufacturers (Such as Astro or Asus) to add a bulletpoint in marketing that is worth over 50 dollars to ignorant consumers.

 

The reality is that solutions such as CMSS-3D and Razer Surround are clearer and truer to the source. They have better panning, and much higher overall fidelity.You might ask why nobody uses these? Well one is ancient, and requires more hardware (ASIC) resources, meaning it is more expensive to manufacture hardware that supports it, while the other is a fully CPU driven solution, with less consumer awareness due to the 'software' nature of it.

post #4805 of 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaQuick View Post
 

No, I am not arguing that it doesn't work. I am arguing that what it does to sound is quanitfiably bad. It isn't a mystical subjective loss in fidelity. It is a compressed, flanged, modulated and phased nightmare.

 

Stop spreading misinformation about the borderline usability of DH, you are doing the opposite of helping.

 

What DH does is simulate a room, not a 3D environment, but an actual room. It uses low resource filters, has no temporal awareness and is limited to 5 very clearly audible / distinguishable psychoacoustic emitters.

 

Literally every other low resource HRTF solution is better at "expanding" sound than DH.

 

Telling me to not go around telling people that DH sucks is like telling me to not tell people that are looking into different car options that the PT Cruiser is the honest to goodness worst pick possible in its price bracket.

 

The point of being an audiophile is to look for the best, and truest, possible aural rendition. People that have no interest in actually hearing good sound shouldn't be throwing money at hardware if their are going to wind up using software that defeats the entire purpose of good hardware. Likewise, people who have never heard that there are better options than, say, Dolby Headphones will, in their ignorance, not try better solutions. It is not because consumers prefer Dolby Headphone that Dolby Headphone is more popular, it is because Dolby Headphone is much more heavily marketed and has ultra low resource requirements allowing hardware manufacturers (Such as Astro or Asus) to add a bulletpoint in marketing that is worth over 50 dollars to ignorant consumers.

 

The reality is that solutions such as CMSS-3D and Razer Surround are clearer and truer to the source. They have better panning, and much higher overall fidelity.You might ask why nobody uses these? Well one is ancient, and requires more hardware (ASIC) resources, meaning it is more expensive to manufacture hardware that supports it, while the other is a fully CPU driven solution, with less consumer awareness due to the 'software' nature of it.

 

Technical points, I agree.

Subjectively, no I don't agree with what you say. The problem with you is that you go and tell people to avoid DH without giving it a try first, you have your opinion about DH and that's good, really, I respect that. But your attitude about it is what's ticking me off.

 

Plenty of people who has spent over a decade in audio equipments and has more experience in them than you or me, uses DH. You gonna go tell them that they have issues then? Go tell them that they are ignorant customers?

 

You mention Razer Surround as being clearer and truer to the source, I'm gonna downright blatantly disagree with you. Razer Surround is horrible, but do I go around spreading it to everyone on the forum or anyone I know to avoid Razer Surround at all costs? No. I tell them my opinion about it and suggest that they still give it a try first, they may like it after all, like you do.

 

Also, the misconception about getting the best of everything in audio to qualify as an audiophile is just discrimination. That's the reason why people still call audiophiles as a self-proclaimed community with no merits and worse, audio snobs.

post #4806 of 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by benbenkr View Post

Plenty of people who has spent over a decade in audio equipments and has more experience in them than you or me, uses DH. You gonna go tell them that they have issues then? Go tell them that they are ignorant customers?

Absolutely. They are ignorant to what is good. It isn't something like "Beatles are terrible" or "Megadeth is alright". It is "Square wheels make the ride rough" type of thing.

 

Something people don't realize is even experts are just people limited to the experience they have. DH is a little older in terms of being a solution, but nobody who has heard all the options will say DH is the best choice, or even a choice to be made at all.

 

Quote:
 You mention Razer Surround as being clearer and truer to the source, I'm gonna downright blatantly disagree with you. Razer Surround is horrible, but do I go around spreading it to everyone on the forum or anyone I know to avoid Razer Surround at all costs? No. I tell them my opinion about it and suggest that they still give it a try first, they may like it after all, like you do.

Quantify that. What does RS do poorly that DH does correctly? I have done positional testing, and A/B listening on stereo sources to see if any loss of DR or clarity occurred, and nothing could be noted other than a bad handling of LFE (Which can be disabled in Windows).

 

Quote:
 Also, the misconception about getting the best of everything in audio to qualify as an audiophile is just discrimination. That's the reason why people still call audiophiles as a self-proclaimed community with no merits and worse, audio snobs.

No. It is not discrimination. If you truly love something, you will pursue it and drive it to perfection. I am no audio snob. I choose to listen to what is most accurate and appropriate. If something renders sound improperly to the point it is defective, then it is a bad product.

 

You seem to have no clue what audiophile even means:

 

au·di·o·phile

  [aw-dee-uh-fahyl]
noun
a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.

 

fi·del·i·ty

  [fi-del-i-tee, fahy-]
noun, plural fi·del·i·ties.
1.
strict observance of promises, duties, etc.: a servant's fidelity.
2.
loyalty: fidelity to one's country.
3.
conjugal faithfulness.
4.
adherence to fact or detail.
5.
accuracy; exactness: The speech was transcribed with great fidelity.

 

Look at that. Audiophile and DH do not go hand in hand. Who would have thought.

post #4807 of 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaQuick View Post
 

Absolutely. They are ignorant to what is good. It isn't something like "Beatles are terrible" or "Megadeth is alright". It is "Square wheels make the ride rough" type of thing.

 

Something people don't realize is even experts are just people limited to the experience they have. DH is a little older in terms of being a solution, but nobody who has heard all the options will say DH is the best choice, or even a choice to be made at all.

 

Quantify that. What does RS do poorly that DH does correctly? I have done positional testing, and A/B listening on stereo sources to see if any loss of DR or clarity occurred, and nothing could be noted other than a bad handling of LFE (Which can be disabled in Windows).

 

No. It is not discrimination. If you truly love something, you will pursue it and drive it to perfection. I am no audio snob. I choose to listen to what is most accurate and appropriate. If something renders sound improperly to the point it is defective, then it is a bad product.

 

You seem to have no clue what audiophile even means:

 

au·di·o·phile

  [aw-dee-uh-fahyl]
noun
a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.

 

fi·del·i·ty

  [fi-del-i-tee, fahy-]
noun, plural fi·del·i·ties.
1.
strict observance of promises, duties, etc.: a servant's fidelity.
2.
loyalty: fidelity to one's country.
3.
conjugal faithfulness.
4.
adherence to fact or detail.
5.
accuracy; exactness: The speech was transcribed with great fidelity.

 

Look at that. Audiophile and DH do not go hand in hand. Who would have thought.

 

Ho...ly. Wow.

 

Don't wanna talk to you anymore, pointless debating with you about it because you think everything accurate is the best. 

 

:rolleyes:

post #4808 of 4811

Razer Surround clearer?

 

H.A.H.A.H.A.H.A.H.A [hahahahaha]

interjection

 

The spleen bursting response from a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction, but thinks your argument is complete bollocks. Music is another matter of course, obviously.

 

 

****s aside.... we ALL know here that binaural sound will, by it's very nature, degrade sound quality; but we're perfectly willing to trade off that edge for sound positioning and ambience in our games and movies. 'Nuff said.

 

Razer Surround... lol. :o2smile:


Edited by SaLX - Today at 1:52 am
post #4809 of 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaQuick View Post

 

Look at that. Audiophile and DH do not go hand in hand. Who would have thought.

 

"audiophile" and "wanker" sometimes go hand in hand though, it would seem...

 

why are you even in this thread? by your logic, any bass-emphasised headphone (such as the X1) is a "bad product".

 

i'll enjoy my "bad product", while you enjoy what is "appropriate"...


Edited by caprimulgus - Today at 6:26 am
post #4810 of 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by caprimulgus View Post
 

 

"audiophile" and "wanker" sometimes go hand in hand though, it would seem...

 

why are you even in this thread? by your logic, any bass-emphasised headphone (such as the X1) is a "bad product".

 

i'll enjoy my "bad product", while you enjoy what is "appropriate"...

 

Indeed! Plus, most genres of dance music rely heavily on the bass. With a very neutral sounding headphone, the music just doesn't sound good because the bass isn't very present.

 

A perfectly flat sounding headphone is for some of us boring. Who cares about "appropriate" when you just want to enjoy your music? My reason for being in this headphone hobby is to ENJOY the music, and whatever helps me reach that goal best is a good product for me.


Edited by TWerk - Today at 8:31 am
post #4811 of 4811

Let it go, folks. The discussion ended with Benbenkr stopped. This thread isn't about arguing if Dolby Headphone is any good or not.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › [New] Philips Fidelio X1