Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2 - Page 1048

post #15706 of 21399
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

 

Yeah, I've actually thought about this for some time - in relation to all headphones and not just IEMs of course.  And I'm kinda with Silent here.  Actually, the solution I came up with involves a massive database that let's people customize what THEY want to see/compare.  Of course, then we run into the problem of data gathering/entry, which would be a monumental task in and of itself.  Ain't nobody got time for that!

 

Re: Data entry

 

Is this :thumb:not a shared hobby? Team Project and different members would contribute to a-rec's database. And from there, his audio club would dump and compile. biggrin.gif


Edited by Silent One - 7/8/13 at 6:28pm
post #15707 of 21399
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

 

Yeah, I've actually thought about this for some time - in relation to all headphones and not just IEMs of course.  And I'm kinda with Silent here.  Actually, the solution I came up with involves a massive database that let's people customize what THEY want to see/compare.  Of course, then we run into the problem of data gathering/entry, which would be a monumental task in and of itself.  Ain't nobody got time for that!


Pretty much the only way to do any meaningful retrieval would indeed be an SQL database. Unfortunately as there are no standards for performance it is well nigh impossible to have meaningful data at all. I'm sure some would love to see a bunch of FRC's and CSD data plugged in so you could make decisions on that. Once again that data is largely meaningless as it is genereated in the context of the testers "pet" system. Also It would not  tell anything about build quality, durability, style etc.

 

About the only thing you could do would be a Wiki type thing where you start out with the manu specs and let owners fill in other details as they emerge.

post #15708 of 21399
You'd think giving people control would be a good idea, but honestly, I'd guess that they just want to be given advice. Kind of like the Apple mentality where you make people conform to your vision, the idea being that people don't know what they want. Put it together however you want. If you want to go the spreadsheet route, just use filters on the columns.

Come to think of it, If you want it, I might have some ugly Excel VBA code somewhere that'll re-sort the table automatically when someone changes weights on parameters.

And for your thread, if you can get your hands on the new FAD Heaven V or the VI, it'll likely be worth your while. biggrin.gif
post #15709 of 21399
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_recording View Post

Hey, so here's a question for you guys...

 

I wanted to start a kind of review / comparison thread between a bunch of single driver earphone models. Rather than ranking them all (this one sounds better then that, etc) I only want to include what I think are reasonably good single driver earphones, really just to make a point that its not necessary to bolt on extra drivers (which seems to be the industry trend in some parts nowadays) because a lot of the shortcomings with single drivers no longer exist. The extra drivers just add phase and time alignment issues, don't play nice with different source equipment and add cost and complexity - something which I find annoying on an almost ethical level...

 

I am just trying to figure out how to structure the comparison.

 

If I compare them by price, it's not helpful because street price fluctuates wildly and I feel like price gives a false impression of relative quality when so far, the relationship seems tenable to me at best. 

 

I could group them together by sound signatures like ClieOS but then I do not want to get into horrible semantic debates about whether or not so and so IEM is REALLY V-shaped because our terminology is so imprecise.

 

I feel almost like grouping them in terms of build quality / comfort but this strikes me as bad in many ways too.

 

How would you guys approach it?

Monoprice 8320, Its bulky, but it sounds nice, I like them, it is well built and has an unoffending sound sig biggrin.gif


Edited by veyrongatti - 7/8/13 at 7:17pm
post #15710 of 21399
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_recording View Post

Hey, so here's a question for you guys...

 

I wanted to start a kind of review / comparison thread between a bunch of single driver earphone models. Rather than ranking them all (this one sounds better then that, etc) I only want to include what I think are reasonably good single driver earphones, really just to make a point that its not necessary to bolt on extra drivers (which seems to be the industry trend in some parts nowadays) because a lot of the shortcomings with single drivers no longer exist. The extra drivers just add phase and time alignment issues, don't play nice with different source equipment and add cost and complexity - something which I find annoying on an almost ethical level...

 

I am just trying to figure out how to structure the comparison.

 

If I compare them by price, it's not helpful because street price fluctuates wildly and I feel like price gives a false impression of relative quality when so far, the relationship seems tenable to me at best. 

 

I could group them together by sound signatures like ClieOS but then I do not want to get into horrible semantic debates about whether or not so and so IEM is REALLY V-shaped because our terminology is so imprecise.

 

I feel almost like grouping them in terms of build quality / comfort but this strikes me as bad in many ways too.

 

How would you guys approach it?

 

Sounds like an interesting project. I'd probably just order them by release date, a history of single driver IEMs.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent One View Post

 

Re: Data entry

 

Is this :thumb:not a shared hobby? Team Project and different members would contribute to a-rec's database. And from there, his audio club would dump and compile. biggrin.gif

 

AJ tried something like this some time back. Was a lot of work for him and I'm not sure if the result was worth it. I'd rather keep it one person's subjective approach.

post #15711 of 21399
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

 


AJ tried something like this some time back. Was a lot of work for him and I'm not sure if the result was worth it. I'd rather keep it one person's subjective approach.

 

Yup, that is a lot of work and dedication. Kudos for AJ's effort. Why I'm in discussion about helping a_recording is that you never know what clever solution might surface. And if not clever, collected energy as opposed to one person's output.

post #15712 of 21399

BTW, doesn't tom have some sort of IEM/driver spreadsheet thing going on?  I seem to remember seeing something like that.  It should be in his sig...

post #15713 of 21399

Hey guys, I highly recommend you all get on Amazon and grab the Papadosio T.E.T.I.O.S  cd. What a great sounding cd.

 

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1069423_270062049802724_60379872_n.jpg

 

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1003994_270062063136056_1479977044_n.jpg

 

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/970573_270062083136054_1454509324_n.jpg

post #15714 of 21399
Looks tool-licious.
post #15715 of 21399

For a_rec's case, it should probably be a sortable chart, to which people can apply filters, like "at least 3 stars in comfort, shallow insertion, and <$250" or something --- sort of like how companies like TI or Analog Devices let people sort through their opamps and DACs by spec and price.

post #15716 of 21399
Other than a 3rd opinion, how would this be different than just selecting the single-driver units from the lists done by ClieOS or ljokerl?

BTW, true story: Before the F22 was named the Raptor, it was sometimes called the "Lightning II" in internal Lockheed documents. But, the Air force wanted the name "Raptor". I guess Lockheed convinced the Air Force to use the "Lightning II" name for the F35.
Edited by billybob_jcv - 7/8/13 at 11:50pm
post #15717 of 21399
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post  BTW, true story: Before the F22 was named the Raptor, it was sometimes called the "Lightning II" in internal Lockheed documents. But, the Air force wanted the name "Raptor". I guess Lockheed convinced the Air Force to use the "Lightning II" name for the F35.

 

Personally, I was partial to Northrup's YF-23. It looked super sinister --- I really wanted a Testors scale model of the YF-23 (but ended up with a YF-22 model). But the YF-22 was more practical (well, not really all that practical, as Congress quickly found out; and then, the F-35 programme ended up basically just as costly, ironically).

post #15718 of 21399
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

BTW, true story: Before the F22 was named the Raptor, it was sometimes called the "Lightning II" in internal Lockheed documents.

 

Even that name is a bit foreign to me... as for the longest time I simply knew it as the ATF.

post #15719 of 21399

Just bought a pair of VJays, comparing it to the PX100 now, overall I think the PX100 is slightly more veiled in the mids, but more detailed, Vjays has better Highs. The bass is around the same. 

post #15720 of 21399
Quote:
Originally Posted by veyrongatti View Post

Just bought a pair of VJays, comparing it to the PX100 now, overall I think the PX100 is slightly more veiled in the mids, but more detailed, Vjays has better Highs. The bass is around the same. 

I thought so too when I used my friend's PX100....

I found it to have a bit of a veiled mid range yet detailed......

Same thing with my HD518, when driven directly by my S3 it seems veiled where as when driven by an amp it sounds completely different(better).....

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2