Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Cafe Sceptico: The Objectivist Cafe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cafe Sceptico: The Objectivist Cafe - Page 11  

post #151 of 498

Quite a while back, noted producer and member of Garbage, Butch Vig, said something along the lines of, recording and mastering pop/rock music that is firewalled or bricked is the way things are and they will continue to be. I say, screw him. 

post #152 of 498

Its really sad that some groups that I loved went from okay to really bad in terms of DR. I still listen to them though. I think more can be done to get consumers to be educated like major bands endorsing high DR and audio companies teaching kids how to protect their ears and noise pollution etc. 

post #153 of 498

Does anyone know what happened to Voldemort? The blog hasn't been updated in 4 months. Sorry for being completely off-topic, but it does concern objetivity.

post #154 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

Does anyone know what happened to Voldemort? The blog hasn't been updated in 4 months.

 

I do not know, but there is indeed not much activity on the blog recently. I posted some comments two weeks ago, and they are still not approved (nor have any others appeared since then).

post #155 of 498

He was no doubt put to rest by Harry, or is planning for his comeback right after Harry's exams Last time he said he had a Timex vs Rolex article on, maybe one of the latest product releases has got to do with him? 

post #156 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

 

I do not know, but there is indeed not much activity on the blog recently. I posted some comments two weeks ago, and they are still not approved (nor have any others appeared since then).

 

I think he's busy doing his full time work...But yeah, even a small post would do.

post #157 of 498

I think Alondite just made the greatest comment ever under the changstar article over on InnerFidelity:

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

Maybe the problem he hears is only his problem, or perhaps it is reflected in the measurements. The measurements record what actually exists; it is free of opinion and subjectivism of any kind. If there is a problem in the measurements, then there are only a few explanations.
 
Either there is a problem with the measurement procedure/gear, or there is a problem with the headphones. 
 
The fact that you like the headphones does not mean that they are without fault. It also doesn't mean that you have to find fault with them. Perhaps you can just overlook their faults, or perhaps you don't have a reference that doesn't share the same fault and can't identify it. Either way, it's irrelevant. 
 
The problem most people have is their inability to separate their opinion from fact. To these people, I have a message: Just because you believe something to be true, does not mean that it is true. On the flip side, just because you don't believe something to be true does not mean that it is not true. 
 
For example, I fully acklowledge that my GR07s have a fairly prominent peak at about 6 kHz. Despite that rather obvious fault (among several other less obvious faults), I happen to enjoy them very much. 
 
With my work in biomechanical skill analysis and exercise physiology I run into this same issue constantly. It is simply impossible to tell somebody that what they believe is incorrect. More often than not, they get offended and take it as an insult against them personally. 
 
I can't tell you the number of times I've been in the gym and have tried to help somebody correct the mechanics of their squat. I inform them that the manner in which they are doing the squat is neither safe, nor effectively working the muscles that they are intending to work, and more often than not, they get upset and tell me that "it works for them," or "just because something works for me doesn't mean it will work for them." Now that is simply not true.
 
I did not spend 6 years of my life in collegiate and graduate study, did not pulbish 2 years worth of research and a 100+ page manuscript for my thesis for a recreational gym-goer to tell me that what I know, for a fact, to be true, is not true. 
 
It seems to be, in my experience, that the people who disagree or become offended by scientific results don't understand what the data actually means. The data is a measurement of what eactually exists. It is not a measurement of opinion or bias, it is a measurement of real, tangible information. If the data doesn't explain the full truth, than we simply are not  measuring all of the data present. 
 
With headphones, the measurements in question are not measuring how "good" a headphone sounds. You can't measure opinion. What they do measure, however, are the objective characterisitcs of the sound reproduction, and a headphone that measures well is one that recreates the source material as closely as possible. Once again, that does not mean that it sounds "better," or that you have to like it. 
 
However, the goal, and in fact definition, of high-fidelity is to recreat the source as closely as possible. If a headphone is priced and marketed as "Hi-Fi" and it does not exibit this quality, than it has failed to deliver what it intends to deliver. This is, I believe, what purrin and company are looking at: the relative price:performance of headphones. 
 
If a $1000 headphone measures worse than a $400 headphone then the consumer is not getting what they are playing for, and the headphone does not deliver what it intends to. It can be reasoned that this is a poor headphone. Now maybe you like the particular signature, and that's fine, but it does not mean that it is a good headphone.
 
When evaluating headphones, you cannot possibly take into account all of the varying sound preferences; you have to go by what you know to be true. That truth being, what you see in the measurements. Anything you believe personally is merely your perception of the truth and thus doesn't have any real value. You may like how those particular headphones sound, but if they measure poorly, they have to be labeled so.
 
If you don't have the means to measure headphones, or can't find measurements of the headphones in question, then you have to evaluate their objective qualities on a relative scale. "Headphone A has more bass, Headphone B has a softer treble character," etc. Even then, it's difficult the keep the evaluation free of subjectivity. That's why the measurements are so valuable.
 
Anyway, long story short, headphone measurements measure the actual characteristics of the headphone. Fact. It has no bearing on whenther you have to, or are even going to like or dislike a given headphone.

 

post #158 of 498

I guess everyone with a scientific background / who's into measurements knew that already, but thanks for re-posting.

 

I strongly disagree with the purists that pay high prices for a particular signature, although like quoted above the headphone technically doesn't necessarily measure better technically. Instead I just pick a decent headphone that fits my needs and equalize em to the signature I like, or just "flat".

Now even crazier are those looking for particular signatures in DACs and amps. X_X


Edited by xnor - 9/14/12 at 11:28am
post #159 of 498

Yeah. I don't know what I'd do with headphones without access to EQ.

post #160 of 498
Thread Starter 
When I bought headphones the last time, I made an effort to find ones that were as flat as possible. Sometimes you just want to plug into a player directly and EQ isn't available.
post #161 of 498

Indeed. That's why I made sure to get a portable player with at least some kind of customizable EQ, even though it's limited. When I'm at home of course I have a computer. All the headphones I've had so far possessed what I consider flaws in the FR, most commonly treble peaks which needed taming.

post #162 of 498
Thread Starter 
That 100Hz bass bump is all too common too.
post #163 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

That 100Hz bass bump is all too common too.

 

That too. I've experienced lower mid dips and upper mid humps more often than I'd like as well, sometimes in combination with each other which is pretty nasty.

post #164 of 498

Do you mean a dip around 200 Hz like, for example, the MDR-V6 has or overall recessed mids?

 

While mids are important I think that on most headphones they are fine. What annoys me more is nasty treble (narrow peaks, sibilance, or even an overall boost) and a bump in the bass. Treble has to gradually roll off, bass has to be flat, mids too. IMO.

post #165 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Do you mean a dip around 200 Hz like, for example, the MDR-V6 has or overall recessed mids?

 

While mids are important I think that on most headphones they are fine. What annoys me more is nasty treble (narrow peaks, sibilance, or even an overall boost) and a bump in the bass. Treble has to gradually roll off, bass has to be flat, mids too. IMO.

 

I mean like the V6, though I don't care for overall recessed mids either. The V6 is an especially bad example. It has that dip and then a stronger than typical upper mids presence giving it that tinny, honky sort of sound. The pair of rev1 HE-300s I had were the same way. It's not all headphones of course, but by coincidence roughly half the headphones I've listened to (11) had dips, humps, or both in the mids. Treble peaks and the like are generally the most bothersome for me as well though.


Edited by manveru - 9/14/12 at 2:56pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Cafe Sceptico: The Objectivist Cafe